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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description usefully adds scope limits ("Non consegna testo") and the chiudi semantics, including what it does NOT do ("non cancella fonti o quaderno e non trasforma le mancanti in lette"). However, chiudi=true "libera volontariamente il piano indicato" is a state change, which sits in tension with readOnlyHint=true; the description mitigates but does not fully reconcile this. It also says nothing about failure modes for an invalid or foreign receipt.

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 correctly with the core definition, but the body is a run-on with line breaks splitting single sentences and a malformed fragment ("avanzamento riguarda soltanto la lettura..." starting mid-thought). Several constraints are packed into one dense paragraph, making the chiudi contract hard to extract on a first read.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the main usage moment and the chiudi snapshot behavior. It is still incomplete on the ricevuta input (the only other parameter) and on error/edge behavior when the passed plan or receipt is not valid, which matters because both parameters are optional and undocumented by schema.

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 0% (bare boolean and string with no descriptions), so the description must carry it: chiudi is well explained (releases the plan, returns conto_snapshot, does not delete sources, is opt-in). The ricevuta parameter is only gestured at ("Passare il piano (o una ricevuta/continuazione della stessa ricerca)") with no indication of what a receipt is, its format, or where it comes from.

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?

Opens with a concrete noun+scope: "Il CONTO di una ricerca: pagine lette, scartate (con i motivi) e mancanti, con i numeri", which tells an agent exactly what it returns. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from research_list ("non elenca ricerche altrui") and from research_continue ("avanzamento riguarda soltanto la lettura in ordine di research_continue"), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 real procedural guidance: call it before the final answer, and if the account is incomplete, declare how many and which pages are missing. It also states the no-argument default ("nel processo privato, senza argomenti, usa l'ultima ricerca") and the sequence constraint ("Conservare quel conto prima di aprire un'altra ricerca"). It stops short of explicit when-not/use-instead routing to research_list or research_continue.

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