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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the return format (Markdown) and the data sources it aggregates, including public registries (ANAC, archive.org) and site text, which tells the agent what to expect as output.

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 noun-phrase identity of the tool followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of contents and a usage clause. No filler, though the content list is long enough to slightly dilute the core statement.

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 must describe the return value, and it does so thoroughly by listing the dossier's sections and noting the Markdown format. Combined with annotations covering the read-only nature, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('id dell'azienda (uuid)'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint detail about the id, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 exactly what the tool returns: a complete company dossier in Markdown, enumerated by content type (data, people, allowed channels, signals, ANAC/archive.org public data, content dates, site text). That is specific and imageable, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like cerca_aziende or azienda_crea, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 closing clause 'Da leggere prima di analizzarla o scriverle' gives a clear when-to-use trigger: read before analyzing or writing to a company. It does not name a competing sibling or state any exclusion, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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