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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds non-obvious behavior: tolerant matching that ignores corporate forms and accents, a 0-1 score, and the operational meaning of 'da_verificare' (a human must check). It does not cover rate limits or the exact response shape, but the added context is substantive.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then matching behavior, then the result-reading caveat. Every clause carries information and none is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated; annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description still supplies purpose, matching semantics, score range, and result interpretation, leaving no gap an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the soglia default 0.8 and range). The description mentions tolerant matching generally but does not elaborate on how the threshold interacts with the score, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 (confronta) and resource (lista consolidata delle sanzioni finanziarie UE), plus the matching mode (tollerante, ignorando forme societarie e accenti). No sibling tool performs sanctions screening, so the domain alone disambiguates it from the validators/cerca_comune.

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 context is implied (screen a person/entity name against sanctions) and the disclaimer 'Screening indicativo, non un sistema AML certificato' frames the appropriate scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any pointer to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the scenario.

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