cerca_trasportatoriIl registro pubblico dei trasportatori di bestiame censiti da BorsaBovini (170+ aziende), con zone servite, mezzi e contatti aziendali pubblici. Filtra per provincia o regione.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regione | No | ||
| provincia | No |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a clearly distinct domain area: ads, transporters, general info, price sources, and price quotations. There is no meaningful overlap, and the descriptions make the boundaries obvious.
All names use lowercase snake_case Italian, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are noun phrases like 'prezzi_bovini' and 'piazze_disponibili', one is a verb phrase 'cerca_trasportatori', and 'info_borsabovini' uses a different prefix style. The naming is readable but not uniform.
Five tools is well-scoped for a niche cattle-market information service. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the domain without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core information needs: prices, marketplaces, ads, transporters, and general info. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated tool for individual ad details or deeper search, but agents can still accomplish the main workflows.