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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing cost (free), auth (no token required), and non-persistence ('Non registra nulla'), plus a scoping note that guarantor data is not supplied here. These are real behavioral facts an agent needs and are consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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 with the key differentiator (free, no token, non-persistent) front-loaded. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so return format needn't be explained. However, with 0% schema coverage and deeply nested input objects, the description leaves the agent without enough detail to construct valid 'agente' and 'mandato' payloads.

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 0% and both top-level params are nested objects with further required fields. The description only names 'agente' and 'mandato' as a 'bozza'; it explains nothing about the nested fields (nome, descrizione, scopo, luoghi enum, azioni_giorno, durata_giorni) or their constraints.

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: it validates ('controlla') a draft agent+mandate using the same rules as entry and returns a ready-to-deliver request. The dry-run/preparation nature is clear. It doesn't name the sibling 'entra' explicitly, only the concept 'ingresso', so differentiation from the real entry tool is implied rather than stated.

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?

The 'gratuito e senza token' framing and 'pronta da consegnare al tuo garante umano' imply this is the pre-flight step before real entry, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. Usage must be inferred from the entry comparison.

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