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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does real work: it discloses that the result includes source lists, validity dates, and a file fingerprint, and it explicitly promises that confidential documents will be reported as unavailable rather than silently omitted. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then add one high-value behavioral caveat about confidential documents. The phrasing is slightly narrative, but every sentence earns its place and there is no real 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 read-only lookup with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, source content, and the refusal behavior. It is incomplete on base_peso semantics and does not fully describe the returned document structure, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 coverage is only 67%; 'dal' and 'fonte' have descriptions, but 'base_peso' is just an unlabeled enum ('vivo'/'morto'). The description reinforces validity dates and source lists but never explains how to set base_peso, so an agent cannot confidently fill that 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 ('i documenti originali dietro le nostre quotazioni') and the function: retrieving the original commodity-market list behind a quoted price, including validity dates and file fingerprint. It doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling tool, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from price-lookup tools.

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 clear use case: 'Serve a chi vuole risalire dal numero alla carta' – trace a price back to its source document. That is clear contextual guidance, though it stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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