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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output will include median, count, and market locations per period, and the time window options. However, it does not disclose read-only status, how missing periods are handled, or any response/error details, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 and temporal options, then output details, then the question it answers. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or repetition of schema content.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the main query intent, temporal constraints, and aggregation output. However, it omits explanations of 'razza' and 'base_peso' and the precise filtering effect of 'piazza', which an agent needs to call the tool optimally.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'passo' (weekly/monthly), 'mesi' (up to 24 months back), and 'categoria' (cattle category), and mentions 'piazze' in the output. However, it does not explain 'razza' or 'base_peso', and does not clarify that 'piazza' filters to a single market, leaving gaps.

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 the tool's function: showing the historical trend of cattle categories over time with weekly or monthly granularity. It specifies the resource (serie storica of cattle prices), the aggregation (median, count, piazze), and the question it answers (price up or down), which distinguishes it from single-value tools 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 a clear context: use this tool when you need to know whether a price has risen or fallen over time, which a single value cannot tell. It implies when not to use it (for current/spot prices) and scopes the time range and step, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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