ItaliaTools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds useful context by citing the legal sources (DM 12/03/1974, DPR 605/1973, ISTAT tables), but does not disclose potential error conditions, output format, or behavior for invalid inputs or foreign birthplaces. As a pure calculation tool, its main behavior is clear, yet edge cases remain unaddressed.

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 primary action and inputs, followed by a concise source citation. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or clutter.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the expected output and any limitations. It implicitly indicates a codice fiscale is returned, but does not mention its format (e.g., 16-character alphanumeric string) or handle special cases like foreign birthplaces. Given the tool's moderate complexity and complete parameter coverage, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by referencing ISTAT cadastral tables, implying that 'comune_nascita' must be a valid comune with a corresponding code. This extra semantic context raises the score to 4.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Calcola il codice fiscale italiano di una persona fisica' with a specific set of inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tax tools (calcola_irpef, calcola_inps, etc.) by targeting the Italian tax code specifically.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the unique purpose among siblings is strongly implied by the tool name and description, making the appropriate use case reasonably inferable. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses tax rates, the abolition of the €2,000 exemption, and legal sources, but does not describe the return format or what happens with negative values (minusvalenze). While useful, it omits some behavioral aspects like how the calculation is returned.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that packs a lot of useful information without being bloated. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then provides essential details. A minor improvement would be to split into two sentences for readability, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview including tax rates, threshold changes, and legal references. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., breakdown of taxes, total amount) or handle edge cases, so there is a slight gap for a calculation tool with no structured output documentation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, including clear descriptions and examples. The description adds some value by explaining the IVCA basis for the portafoglio parameter and the 4-year carryforward for minusvalenze, but it mostly reiterates what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb 'calcola' (calculates) and clearly identifies the resource: crypto taxes for 2026, with specific tax rates. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other Italian tax topics (IRPEF, INPS, flat-rate scheme).

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 description explicitly states the context (tax calculation for crypto in 2026) and provides regulatory details, making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious, and the detailed tax rules imply a niche focus.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that INPS is 'stimato' (estimated), sets the €85k access limit, and cites the legal source. It does not mention edge-case behavior (e.g., exceeding the limit) or error handling, but the nature of the tool as a read-only calculator is clear.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and variants, followed by the access limit and legal reference. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 calculator with no output schema, it names the expected outputs (imposta, INPS, netto), states the eligibility limit, and provides source legislation. It lacks explicit output format or detailed error handling, but is sufficient for a well-scoped calculation tool with fully documented parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, including enum values and conditions (e.g., regime_startup requirements). The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Calcola imposta sostitutiva (5% startup o 15% standard), INPS stimato e netto per il regime forfettario 2026.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculators like calcola_irpef or calcola_inps by naming the exact regime and components.

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 explicitly states the access limit ('Limite accesso: €85.000 ricavi') and legal basis, which tells the user when this tool is applicable. However, it lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to alternatives, relying instead on the regime context and sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It provides useful legal sources and mentions the 35% reduction, but it says 'Include riduzione 35%' without clarifying that the reduction is only applied when `richiesta_riduzione` is set to true (default false per schema). This ambiguity could mislead users into thinking the reduction is automatic.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the core verb and object, and packs in the key legal references without filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and context.

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?

Given the well-annotated schema, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it specifies year, target groups, a special reduction, and legal sources. It could mention that gestione_separata uses `tipo_collaboratore` or return-value format, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, including enum meanings and default values, so the description adds little parameter-level value. It does reinforce the connection between the riduzione and forfettari, but no new syntax or format details are provided 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?

The description opens with 'Calcola i contributi INPS 2026'—a specific action ('calcola') on a specific resource ('contributi INPS 2026')—and enumerates the exact target groups (artisans, traders, separate management). It also calls out the 35% flat-rate reduction, which distinguishes it from sibling tax calculators like calcola_irpef or calcola_forfettario.

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 description clarifies the domain (INPS contributions for 2026) and explicitly includes the forfettario reduction, implying when this tool is relevant. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or says 'use this instead of calcola_forfettario for INPS contributions,' so it lacks formal exclusions.

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

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

The description discloses the calculation includes deductions, optional regional surcharge, and specifically the 2026 tax brackets, along with its legal source. However, it does not explain behavior when 'regione' is omitted (though that is in the schema) or how output is structured, and since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It also does not detail how deductions differ by tipo_reddito.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states function and scope, the second gives tax brackets and source. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant details.

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?

The description provides essential calculation context (tax brackets, year, legal basis) and states the output includes gross and net, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not describe the return structure or behavior when the region is omitted, relying on the schema's regione description. Overall, it is fairly complete for a tax calculator.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions and examples (reddito, regione, tipo_reddito), so the description adds minimal new information. The mention of 'addizionale regionale' and 'detrazioni' aligns with parameters but does not further clarify them. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the tool calculates IRPEF 2026 (gross and net) with deductions and optional regional surcharge. It provides the tax brackets and legal source, making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calcola_forfettario or calcola_crypto_tax.

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 description implies usage for personal income tax calculation but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as calcola_forfettario for flat-rate regimes. It also does not state any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools is available but not referenced.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that all groups are returned ('tutti') and discloses the legal source ('Fonte: Allegato 4 L.190/2014'), which adds useful context. It does not explicitly say it is read-only or describe output format, but 'Restituisce' and the absence of side effects are implicitly clear.

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?

The description is two short, information-dense sentences. The first states the action and content, the second provides the source. No wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter list endpoint, the description provides the core information: what is returned, its scope, and legal basis. It lacks explicit mention of output structure, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could hint at usage as a reference input for other tax tools, but this is not required.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because there are none, and the schema confirms this with empty properties.

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 uses the specific verb 'Restituisce' and clearly identifies the resource ('tutti i gruppi ATECO disponibili') along with the key detail of 'coefficienti di redditività per il regime forfettario'. This distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools like calcola_forfettario, as this is a reference list rather than a calculation.

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: the tool is for retrieving ATECO groups and coefficients, which would be useful when looking up data for the flat-rate regime. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion of alternatives, or mention of when not to use it (e.g., when a calculation is needed instead).

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

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond a bare function: it specifies the source (FiscoOggi.it), update cadence (weekly via RSS scraper), and a cost note ('$0.005/chiamata via x402'). However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any error behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence followed by a brief cost note. It front-loads the main purpose and includes only essential information. No superfluous words, making it highly efficient.

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 simple two-param tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: source, update frequency, cost, and purpose. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the structure of the returned news items (titles, links, dates, etc.), which leaves some ambiguity. Adequate but with room for improvement.

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% for both 'limit' and 'categoria', and their descriptions are clear. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Restituisce le ultime notizie e novità fiscali da FiscoOggi.it' (returns latest tax news from a specific source). It identifies a specific verb ('restituisce'), resource ('notizie fiscali'), and source ('FiscoOggi.it'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like calcola_codice_fiscale and risoluzioni_circolari.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases like needing official resolutions (where risoluzioni_circolari might be more appropriate) or when not to use it. The only contextual hint is the 'aggiornate ogni settimana' note, but there is no explicit comparison to siblings.

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

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

Non essendoci annotazioni, la descrizione deve comunicare da sola i comportamenti. Aggiunge informazioni utili come l'aggiornamento tramite scraper, la fonte ufficiale e il costo per chiamata ($0.01 via x402). Non menziona però il formato di ritorno o eventuali limitazioni, ma per un tool di lettura è sufficiente.

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?

La descrizione è composta da tre frasi concise e tutte informative: scopo, aggiornamento/fonte, e nota sul pagamento. Nessuna parola superflua e informazioni front-loaded.

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?

Per un tool di recupero con 3 parametri opzionali e senza output schema, la descrizione copre gli aspetti principali: cosa restituisce, la fonte, l'aggiornamento e il costo. Manca la struttura di ritorno, ma la semplicità dei dati non richiede ulteriori dettagli.

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?

Lo schema copre già tutti i parametri con descrizioni, quindi la baseline è 3. La descrizione riformula genericamente il filtraggio per tipo e ricerca testo libero, ma non aggiunge dettagli oltre allo 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?

La descrizione specifica chiaramente l'azione ('Restituisce'), la risorsa ('risoluzioni e circolari dell'Agenzia delle Entrate') e l'ambito ('per anno'), distinguendosi dai tool fratelli che sono calcolatori o scadenzari. La fonte citata aggiunge ulteriore chiarezza.

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?

La descrizione fornisce contesto sull'aggiornamento settimanale e sulla fonte, ma non indica esplicitamente quando usare questo tool rispetto ad alternative come novita_fiscali o scadenzario_fiscale. L'utilizzo è implicito nel purpose, ma manca una guida diretta.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral details: data is scraped from agenziaentrate.gov.it, updated every 6 hours, and the service costs $0.005 per call. These facts inform the agent about freshness and cost, though it does not cover error behavior or response format.

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?

The description is two compact sentences plus a cost note. Every sentence contributes: function, data source/update frequency, and pricing. It is front-loaded and free of redundant wording.

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?

The tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core function, update mechanism, and cost. It could mention the return structure (e.g., list of entries with date/description), but the absence is not a significant gap for this straightforward tool.

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%, with each parameter (anno, mese, tipo) documented with defaults or enums. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Restituisce le scadenze fiscali del mese richiesto', clearly stating the tool's function as returning fiscal deadlines for a specified month. This distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools (calcola_*) and news tools (novita_fiscali), which serve different purposes.

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 description implies when to use the tool (retrieve monthly fiscal deadlines) but provides no explicit comparison with alternatives like novita_fiscali or risoluzioni_circolari. It does not state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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