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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations don't: it discloses the return shape (id, essential data, link to the detail page) and clarifies that the priority score is a list-ordering metric rather than a purchase probability, which heads off a common misreading of the punteggio_min filter.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return contract. The parenthetical filter list is dense but each item earns its place by previewing a real parameter; nothing is padded.

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 correctly compensates by stating what is returned, and all 9 optional parameters are covered by schema descriptions. The tool has no required params and a capped 'limite', so pagination behavior is covered; only the exact shape of 'dati essenziali' remains underspecified.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented with descriptions and ranges. The description merely restates the filter categories (text, province, sector, min priority, distance, drafts, analyzed) without adding format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

A precise verb ('cerca') plus resource ('aziende') scoped to the organization, with the filter set and the returned fields spelled out. It implicitly contrasts with create/detail siblings by noting it returns a link to the scheda, but it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter enumeration (search when you need to narrow companies by text, province, sector, priority, distance, draft state). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among siblings like panoramica or scheda_azienda.

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