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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description corroborates this by explaining the dedup keys (same P.IVA, website, or name+comune return the existing id). It also discloses a non-obvious side effect — supplying a website causes DeviL to scrape it and compute a score. No auth/permission details, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by dedup and the site-scoring caveat. Each sentence carries information; no filler, though the phrasing is dense.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency and a fully documented 11-param schema, the description covers the remaining gaps: return value on duplicates and the site-reading side effect. No output schema exists, and the description adequately explains what it returns.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying parameters to behavior: partita_iva is used for duplicate detection and sito triggers external reading and scoring. This parameter interaction is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Aggiunge un’azienda a mano') and clarifies the mode of entry versus automated sourcing. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like cerca_aziende to differentiate, but an agent can still tell this is a manual create operation.

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?

It gives the usage context (a lead or trade-fair contact) and describes the duplicate-return behavior, which effectively signals when creation will be a no-op. However, it never tells the agent to look up first or names which sibling (e.g. cerca_aziende) to use instead when the company may already exist.

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