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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing a post-save side effect — DeviL computes matching companies after saving. It does not say whether the call returns the new id or how to retrieve the computed matches, but the annotation-plus-side-effect coverage is solid.

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, front-loaded with the create-or-update rule. The settori sentence ('le chiavi elencate nel campo settori') is slightly circular and redundant with the schema, which is the only real waste.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the key thing an agent needs to know about returns (that matches are computed asynchronously after saving) is stated. For a 1-required-param mutation tool with fully documented params and annotations, nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100% across all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the id semantics (already in the schema) and gestures at settori/parole_chiave meaning, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Crea o aggiorna un'offerta') and resolves the create-vs-update ambiguity inline via the id rule (id = update, no id = new). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like portfolio_salva or offerte_elenco, which an agent must infer.

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?

The id/no-id rule gives a clear conditional for choosing create vs update, which is genuine usage guidance. But there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus portfolio_salva (the obvious sibling for saving a different entity) or when to read via offerte_elenco instead.

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