play__urunler

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the dual-endpoint fallback (oneTimeProducts for migrated apps, inappproducts otherwise) and that the tool reports which endpoint succeeded, which helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the relevant behavioral nuance about endpoint selection. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (product listing) and explains the fallback behavior. It could go further on result shape or error handling, but the essentials are present.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'paket_adi' with an example. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: 'lists one-time in-app products' ('Tek seferlik uygulama içi ürünleri listeler'). The qualifier 'tek seferlik' cleanly separates it from the subscription-oriented siblings like play__abonelikler and appstore__abonelikler.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource scope (one-time products), but the description never says when to choose it over alternatives such as play__abonelikler or magaza__iap_teshis, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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