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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: each quote includes source, timestamp, and stale/fresh status; the selected value follows an authority hierarchy rather than an average; vivo/morto are not comparable; and zona data are kept separate from the official price. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 a compact five-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding one distinct fact per sentence: provenance and staleness, authority rule, filters, and zona behavior. There is no filler or repetition beyond what earns its place.

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 tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts needed for correct invocation: data source, per-price fields, authority selection, weight non-comparability, and optional zona behavior. Minor gaps such as an explicit return structure or default no-filter behavior remain, but the description is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds value by restating the vivo/morto non-comparability caveat, clarifying that 'zona' appends separate Osservatorio readings, and explaining the authority rule that determines which value to cite, though it does not deeply expand on 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 states that this tool returns cattle quotations from Italian commodity exchanges ('Le quotazioni dei bovini rilevate dalle borse merci italiane') and lists the available filters, so its function is unambiguous. It does not use an explicit verb like 'restituisce' and does not name sibling tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context: the price to cite follows an authority hierarchy (Modena first, ISMEA fallback, not an average), and it explains how to filter and when to use 'zona' to append separate Osservatorio data. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer a sibling tool such as osservatorio_zone or serie_storica, so exclusions are absent.

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