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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: the exact fields returned (title, type, emanation date, GU publication date, opening text bounded at "preamble through the start of Article 1") and the notable caveat that publication date is kept separate from emanation and in-force dates. The versioning behavior (multivigenza default vs original) is a real behavioral trait not captured by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and a canonical example before any modifiers. Every clause carries load — the version-selection sentence, the sibling routing sentence, and the IPZS source attribution all serve selection or trust decisions; nothing is boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and even bounds the extent of the returned text, so an agent knows what it will get. For a three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, nothing material is missing.

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; the description goes slightly beyond by explaining what as_of means in domain terms ("the version in force on that date (multivigenza)") and contrasting the original/default modes. It does not resolve the edge case of supplying both as_of and original, which keeps it below a 5.

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 and resource — "Resolve an exact citation (URN:NIR) to an Italian national act" — and immediately grounds it with a concrete example (the Privacy Code). It also signals what distinguishes it from the sibling it_normattiva_get_article, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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 branching is given: pass as_of for a version in force on a date, original: true for as-enacted text, and the default is stated as the current consolidated text. It names the alternative explicitly ("For a specific article's text, use it_normattiva_get_article instead"), which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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