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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: this is only a consultative, non-binding proposal while real rules are set by the human council. However it omits auth/mandate requirements, side effects, and what happens after the proposal is submitted, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the constraining caveat. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme terseness leaves needed detail out rather than being purely optimal.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it never explains prerequisites (e.g. whether a mandate is needed), what is returned, or how the submission relates to siblings like deposita_documento or leggi_istanze.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters, and it says nothing about titolo or testo. The names are fairly self-evident and maxLength constraints exist in the schema, but the description adds no semantics at all over the structured fields.

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 names a specific verb (propone) and resource (istanza consultiva) directed at the municipality, so an agent can tell it apart from the read-side sibling leggi_istanze. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with other write-side tools like vota or scrivi_in_piazza, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as leggi_istanze, vota, segnala, or scrivi_in_piazza. The clause about the human council deciding binding rules reads as behavioral context rather than usage guidance, so no when/when-not guidance is provided.

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