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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'READ-ONLY' is consistent though partly redundant. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the include_content toggle semantics and the critical constraint that A+ modules are typed (STANDARD_TEXT, STANDARD_COMPARISON_TABLE) rather than free HTML, warning that externally generated HTML must be remapped. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but no output schema exists to cover the return shape either.

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?

Front-loaded with the READ-ONLY marker and the core purpose, then parameter sourcing, then the typed-module caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; the final NB caveat is long but earns its place by preventing a misuse pattern.

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 output schema, the description steps in by enumerating returned fields (status, badge, ASINs, module types) and documenting the include_content toggle. The typed-module warning covers the main downstream integration risk. Only light gaps remain, such as no mention of missing-key or not-found behavior.

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 67% and content_reference_key has no schema description at all; the description compensates by naming its two source tools, which is exactly the missing semantic. include_content is documented in the schema, and the description still adds the 'moduli completi' clarification. account_id is already covered by its schema description.

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 ('Dettaglio di UN documento A+') and immediately scopes it as single-document retrieval, which cleanly separates it from list_aplus_documents and audit_aplus_coverage. It also enumerates what the document detail contains (stato, badge, ASIN associati, tipi di modulo), so the agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required key comes from ('si prende da list_aplus_documents o audit_aplus_coverage'), which is real routing guidance. It does not state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., use list_aplus_documents for bulk retrieval), so it falls short of a full 5.

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