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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context beyond the schema: data sources, price unit in euro, and the presence of a date and citable source. However, it does not clarify whether the tool returns a single quote or a time series, what happens when no filters are supplied, or any limitations such as pagination or update frequency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the source resource comes first, followed by filter dimensions and output details. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the structure could be slightly more scannable with separate clauses for filters and output.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should make default behavior and return shape explicit. It does mention price, date, and source, and it names all filter fields. But it does not say what a typical response contains beyond those fields, how the 'giorni' window behaves when omitted, or that piazze_disponibili could be used to discover valid square values.

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 100%: every parameter already has a description with examples and constraints. The tool description mostly repeats the same examples from the schema and adds little new semantic information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific resource ('quotazioni dei bovini vivi rilevate dalle borse merci italiane'), a concrete action ('Filtra per categoria... raza... o piazza'), and the output nature ('Prezzi in euro, con data di rilevazione e fonte citabile'). The subject matter alone distinguishes it clearly from siblings such as annunci_bacheca, cerca_trasportatori, info_borsabovini, and piazze_disponibili.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve live-cattle price quotations from Italian commodity exchanges, optionally filtered by category, breed, or square. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but the intended use case is strong and unambiguous.

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