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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: no external contact is made, and re-queueing an existing company does not duplicate it. It also discloses the return value (the queued company name) despite there being no output schema.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by where the result lands and the key constraint (no contact, no duplicates). Dense but essentially waste-free; only the colloquial 'Poi la trovi' could be trimmed.

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 3-parameter, non-destructive queueing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, side-effect boundary, idempotency and return value. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% and the `canale` enum already carries consent caveats, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes that `canale` and `indicazioni` are optional and adds an example instruction, which is already mirrored by the schema's own example — marginal added value, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mette un'azienda in coda per Claude') plus the observable outcome ('Poi la trovi in dossier_da_lavorare'), which ties it to a sibling concept without ambiguity. The clause 'Non contatta nessuno: prepara solo il lavoro' separates it from outreach/result-sending siblings such as invia_risultati.

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 purpose and by the negative constraint that it only prepares work and does not contact anyone, which implicitly delimits it from sending tools. However, it never names an alternative or states the condition for choosing this over cantieri_da_lavorare or azienda_crea, so the agent must infer the routing.

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