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.