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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about original-language output, date-based version resolution (multivigenza), separate publication/emanation/in-force date fields, original enactment option, and annex selection.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds parameter and behavior details efficiently. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes information about scope, inputs, or version handling.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it explains the purpose, how to obtain the urn, date-based version resolution, original/annex options, and the source. No critical pre-call information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some workflow context for urn and examples for article, but largely repeats schema-level semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: get the original-language Italian text of one article of an Italian national act. It clearly scopes the tool to a single article and distinguishes it from it_normattiva_search and it_normattiva_get_act by naming them as sources of the required urn.

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?

Provides clear context: urn should come from it_normattiva_search or it_normattiva_get_act. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative for retrieving whole-act text, but the workflow dependency and intended use are clear.

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