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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: all query words must co-occur on one page, tolerant mode absorbs OCR misspellings and period variants, the reported total is the full filtered set with prossimo_inizio continuing it, and zero results only describe archive coverage rather than prove absence. It stops short of describing result ordering effects or cost/latency of enabling the map.

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?

Dense but well structured with labeled sections (COME CERCA, FILTRI, FORMATO, MAPPA), and purpose plus the research_start alternative are front-loaded. The MAPPA paragraph is the longest block and could be tightened, but nearly every sentence carries operational information.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and an output schema present, this is close to sufficient: entry conditions, query construction, filters, output shape, pagination and zero-result interpretation are all addressed. Only ordine and raggruppa remain undocumented anywhere in the definition.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it explains query word rules, modo's two modes, dal/al date formats plus the caveat that publication lag means events appear later, testata's source, formato's two shapes and their 50/500 caps, inizio=0 for the map, and mappa=false. It leaves ordine (rilevanza/data) and raggruppa unexplained, which are the two remaining parameters.

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 concrete verb and resource (search words/names across all periodicals) and immediately qualifies scope: 'SENZA CONTO' quick check versus research_start for reconstructing a fact. It names the sibling it is not and points to related tools (read_pages, list_periodicals), so an agent can discriminate it from the other 17 siblings without opening schemas.

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 rules: use search for 'una verifica puntuale', use research_start when reconstructing a fact/person/theme because that tool lists all pages and tracks read/discarded ones. It also gives conditional guidance for choosing formato by result volume and for setting mappa=false once oriented — the when/when-not pattern is fully present.

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