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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses that the result is 'sempre un INTERVALLO, non un numero secco', that the yield is declared with its provenance, and that yield varies with breed. It does not mention error or validation behavior, but for a conversion tool the key behavioral traps are covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries useful information: operation, rationale, interval output, yield variability, and usage. It is longer than strictly necessary due to the illustrative Piemontese/Frisona example, but the example supports the behavioral point rather than padding.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the input types, output shape (interval), yield provenance, and when to call it. It leaves the exact response structure unspecified, but an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description adds only a general hint that 'la razza conta più della categoria'. It does not elaborate on the optional razza or the required valore beyond what the schema states, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 first sentence begins with a specific verb and target: 'Trasforma un peso o un prezzo da peso vivo a peso morto (carcassa) e viceversa', which clearly identifies the operation and resource. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling market-data tools, which do not perform conversion.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger for use: 'Da usare prima di confrontare due prezzi con basi diverse' and explains why via the Camere di Commercio vs Commissione Europea mismatch. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative-tool routing, but no sibling competes for this job, so the absence is minor.

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