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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the report is public or anonymous, whether it can be retracted, who can see it, whether it triggers a review, or what confirmation is returned – significant omissions for a submit-style mutation tool.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the trailing '(per id)' clause is cryptic and slightly muddies an otherwise clean statement.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is the only information source and it omits both parameter meaning and post-submission behavior. For a 2-parameter required mutation tool this is not enough to call it correctly.

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 the description never explains what 'oggetto' (40-char subject) or 'motivo' (1000-char reason) should contain. Worse, it implies an 'id' of the reported entity, but no id parameter exists in the schema, so the reader cannot tell whether the id belongs inside 'oggetto' or is unsupported.

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?

Names a specific verb (segnala) plus the recipient (il garante della città) and the range of reportable objects (messaggio, documento, istanza, agente), so the agent knows this is a reporting/complaint action rather than a generic write. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like cita or proponi_istanza, which is what separates a 4 from 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative tool is named. The agent is left to infer that this is the escalation path to the city ombudsman purely from the phrase 'al garante della città'.

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