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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds real behavioral context: has_xbrl flags rows carrying a downloadable ESEF/XBRL ZIP and document_url then points at the .zip rather than a .pdf — a return-shape trait not inferable from the schema. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or result-window behavior at scale, though date semantics are cross-referenced.

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?

Purpose and sibling exclusion are front-loaded well, but the body is a dense block that mixes category enumeration, date-convention cross-references, and field semantics into one paragraph. The inline code list is necessary given the schema pointer, yet the prose around it could be trimmed without losing signal.

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, the description still explains the meaningful return fields (has_xbrl, document_url payload type), issuer/category/date identifiers, and cross-tool id reuse. An agent has enough to call this correctly and interpret results without further tools.

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 baseline is 3, but the description supplies the full category code lookup (100 through 150, with Italian regulatory labels) that the schema explicitly defers to ('See tool description for the full code list'). It also documents the inclusive date_to convention and the azienda_id provenance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search eMarket Storage's DOCUMENT ARCHIVE') and immediately scopes it against the sibling: 'a SEPARATE repository from emarket_search_disclosures' press-release stream'. The concrete Interpump category=100 example makes the distinction unmistakable.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use this (not emarket_search_disclosures) when you need the annual report or ESEF package itself, not an issuer's press release ABOUT it.' That is a when-to-use, a when-not-to-use, and the alternative named in a single sentence.

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