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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the free-text matching is OR-across-words over the whole corpus rather than exact phrase, the return shape is described (act type, title, emanation date, publication date kept separate, constructed urn), and the data source is disclosed. This is exactly the matching-semantics context an agent needs to tune queries.

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-loads purpose, then return shape and chaining, then parameter behavior, then the matching caveat and source. It is dense but every sentence carries distinct information relevant to calling the tool correctly, and there is no filler.

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 ten parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description compensates by explaining the return fields, the urn chaining path, the matching semantics, and the date-parameter relationships. An agent has everything needed to construct a correct query and know what comes back.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that query is OR-matching rather than phrase, stresses the emanation-vs-publication distinction (subtle and easy to conflate), and reiterates the official Italian label convention for act_type. It does not add anything for limit/offset paging, which the schema already handles.

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 (Search) and resource (Italian national legislation) and enumerates the covered act categories (laws, decree-laws, legislative decrees, Constitution, regulations). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming it_normattiva_get_act and it_normattiva_get_article as downstream chaining targets, so an agent can place it in the family without opening a 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?

Gives clear usage guidance: use in_force_on to restrict to in-force acts, and 'narrow with title/act_type/dates for tight results' after explaining the OR matching. It implies the search-then-fetch workflow via the urn chaining note, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against the get_* siblings ('use get_act once you have a urn').

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