BorsaBovini

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that contacts are not included and that replies are done through the page link, and it scopes to active ads only. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema, though pagination and output format 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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first front-loads the resource and content fields, the second states the contact limitation. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It provides the key output fields and a critical limitation, while the schema covers parameter defaults and formats. It lacks explicit usage routing and pagination details, but those gaps do not seriously undermine the ability to select and invoke the 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?

The schema already documents 'tipo' via an enum with default and 'provincia' as name or abbreviation, while 'razza' is undocumented. The description mentions razza and provicia as output fields, hinting at their filtering role, but it does not directly explain how parameters refine results. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds a little context but does not fully compensate for the incomplete 'razza' parameter.

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 identifies the resource (active ads on the BorsaBovini board), states who it covers (sellers and buyers of cattle), and lists the returned fields. It is semantically distinct from siblings like prezzi_bovini, piazze_disponibili, and cerca_trasportatori. Though no explicit verb like 'list' is used, the meaning is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling tool is named. The intended usage is implied by the description: use this tool for active buy/sell announcements rather than for prices or transporters. The guidance is adequate but not stated.

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 burden; it discloses that the tool is a public listing with 170+ firms and includes served zones, vehicles, and contacts. However, it does not explicitly state the return behavior, such as whether all records are returned when no filters are supplied.

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 concise sentences lead with the registry's purpose and content, then state the filter action. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 low-complexity lookup tool, the description conveys the available data and filter dimensions, but the absence of an output schema and explicit return-value description leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 ​0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies regione and provincia as filters, but gives no format guidance, allowed values, or clarification that both are optional or can be combined.

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 identifies the resource (public registry of livestock carriers) and the action (filtering by province/region). It is distinct from the sibling tools by domain, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 filter instruction implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools or what scenarios it is not suited for. The context is inferable from the domain rather than stated.

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. It identifies the tool as informational ('what it offers, how it is used'), which implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not detail the response format, whether the information is static, or any limitations, but for a simple info tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('what BorsaBovini.it offers and how to use it') followed by a compact list of covered topics. No filler or redundancy; every element contributes meaning.

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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description gives enough context to understand its purpose and place among the siblings. It could be slightly more explicit that the output is likely a static text summary, but the scope is small and the description sufficiently covers it.

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 and the schema coverage is complete (100%), so the parameter semantics baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and it correctly omits any.

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 that this tool tells the user what BorsaBovini.it offers and how to use it, enumerating content areas (quotations, bulletin board, scan, transport, contacts). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are specific feature-based tools, though the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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 this is the general overview/help tool while the siblings cover specific functions, and the listed topics hint at those alternatives (quotazioni -> prezzi_bovini, bacheca -> annunci_bacheca, trasporti -> cerca_trasportatori). However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus a sibling, or when not to use it.

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. It disloses that the tool returns an enumeration and that each item includes the date of the last lervation. The verb 'Elenco' implies a read-only listing, and no side effects or permissions need warning for a zero-parameter lookup.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the main content and adding the freshness attribute compactly. Every word earns its place.

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, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and the associated date. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly saying the result is read-only or by hinting at the output shape, but nothing essential is missing.

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 no parameters, so the input schema already fully describes how to invoke it. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details; baseline 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it lists the borse merci and price sources covered by BorsaBovini, adding the freshness date as the distinguishing feature. This is clearly different from siblings like prezzi_bovini or annunci_bacheca.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious, but it does not explicitly indicate when to use it or which sibling to prefer. An agent must infer that this tool is for checking which markets/sources are available and how fresh they are before querying prices.

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 transparency burden. It adds useful context beyond the schema: data sources, price unit in euro, and the presence of a date and citable source. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns a single quote or a time series, what happens when no filters are supplied, or any limitations such as pagination or update frequency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the source resource comes first, followed by filter dimensions and output details. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the structure could be slightly more scannable with separate clauses for filters and output.

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 and no annotations, the description should make default behavior and return shape explicit. It does mention price, date, and source, and it names all filter fields. But it does not say what a typical response contains beyond those fields, how the 'giorni' window behaves when omitted, or that piazze_disponibili could be used to discover valid square values.

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%: every parameter already has a description with examples and constraints. The tool description mostly repeats the same examples from the schema and adds little new semantic information, so the baseline 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 identifies a specific resource ('quotazioni dei bovini vivi rilevate dalle borse merci italiane'), a concrete action ('Filtra per categoria... raza... o piazza'), and the output nature ('Prezzi in euro, con data di rilevazione e fonte citabile'). The subject matter alone distinguishes it clearly from siblings such as annunci_bacheca, cerca_trasportatori, info_borsabovini, and piazze_disponibili.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve live-cattle price quotations from Italian commodity exchanges, optionally filtered by category, breed, or square. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the intended use case is strong and unambiguous.

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