play__satin_alma_dogrula

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read and remote-lookup profile is covered structurally. The description adds that both subscription and one-time products are handled and that a status is returned, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements or rate limits beyond what annotations give.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the framing question and the supported-scope note. No wasted filler, though the final sentence is somewhat redundant with the enum in the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A read-only verification tool with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the returned status – yet 'durumunu döndürür' never says what status values or shape come back. Otherwise complete for a three-parameter call whose schema is fully documented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (tur, token, paket_adi) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the subscription-vs-product distinction that the `tur` enum already encodes, adding no format or syntax detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('satın alma token'ını doğrular' – verifies a purchase token) and the scope (subscription and one-time product). This distinguishes it from listing tools like play__abonelikler or play__urunler, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an implied usage framing via the question it answers ('is this user's subscription really active?'), which helps an agent recognize the right moment. But it offers no when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as magaza__iap_teshis or play__abonelikler, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.