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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is user-declared (not official), is a regional 'pulse', and includes the number of sources ('con il numero di chi lo ha rilevato'). This gives important behavioral context about data reliability and what the output will contain. It does not mention side effects, but this is a read operation and the description adequately conveys its non-authoritative nature.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value: purpose, differentiation, and behavioral caveat. It is well-structured and not overly long for a tool with this complexity.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the nature of the data and hints at the output containing a count, but it does not explain parameter usage, whether all parameters are optional, or what the response looks like beyond that count. It also mentions 'per settimana' without a corresponding parameter, leaving ambiguity. The description should provide more guidance for effective invocation.

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 only 25% (only 'regione' has a description). The tool description mentions 'per zona' which maps to regione, but does not explain 'razza', 'base_peso', or 'categoria'. It also implies weekly data but no week parameter is in the schema, creating potential confusion. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate by clarifying the other parameters.

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 it provides prices declared by market participants (breeders, operators, associations) per zone and week, and explicitly distinguishes itself from official quotations. It does not name a specific sibling tool for differentiation, but the 'not official' contrast effectively separates it from likely alternatives like prezzi_bovini.

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 context that it reflects real regional prices that can deviate from national references, and explicitly states it is not an official price and does not replace quotations. However, it does not name an alternative tool or provide explicit when-to-use conditions beyond 'for real regional data' vs. official. It implies usage but lacks direct routing.

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