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.