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.