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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pricing (€5.50, split €0.60 search / €4.90 document) and the two-step search-then-finalize behavior, which are genuine additions beyond structured data. But it says nothing about what the search results contain, pagination, permissions, or error behavior, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 definition is short, bulleted, and front-loaded: workflow routing comes first, followed by price and required-parameter notes. Every line is compact, though the raw ID and price breakdown are somewhat peripheral to invocation.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the workflow and cost. Five optional filtering parameters are unexplained and the contents of the 'search results' are never described, leaving the agent unable to invoke it well beyond the single required field.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'Required: taxCode' (which merely restates the schema's required field) and says nothing about the five optional date/actGroupCode filters, which are the ones an agent actually needs to understand. Most parameters remain undocumented.

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 the specific service ('Atto Ottico', ID 6687eea71a241a5d1be0f9f9) and states its role in the workflow ('This returns search results'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling patch_docuengine_atto_ottico. However, the resource itself ('Atto Ottico') is undefined jargon, so an agent cannot tell what document type it is actually retrieving without outside knowledge.

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 explicitly describes a two-step process and routes the agent to the correct alternative: 'Use patch_docuengine_atto_ottico to select and finalize.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or when not to use it, so it falls just below the top band.

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