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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by disclosing the returned fields (autore, licenza, data, impronta), but says nothing about ordering, the effect of the 'limite' bound, or behavior on zero/too many matches.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the return values. No wasted wording, though the second sentence could be tightened into the data contract.

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 simple 2-param read tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating return fields, and annotations cover safety. It still leaves the 'limite' parameter and pagination/limit semantics unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It partially explains 'cerca' (word matching over title or text), but 'limite' is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of two parameters opaque.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Cerca) and resource (documenti nell'archivio), plus the search mode (per parola, titolo o testo) and the returned fields. This distinguishes it from reading tools like leggi_documento, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against.

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 verb 'Cerca' – an agent can infer this is the keyword-search entry point versus leggi_documento for reading a known document. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative.

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