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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the warning that textual presence does not prove the interpretation is correct, and that modo=spazi always returns testo_originale with exact coordinates.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds a constraint or caveat, but the block is a dense run-on without structure and the 'restituisce sempre testo_originale e coordinate esatte' clause partially repeats the earlier return statement.

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 a full annotation set and an output schema, the description only needs to cover purpose, parameters and caveats, which it does. The main residual gap is that fonte_id's expected source is never described, though it is inferable from sibling archive tools.

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 must carry the load and largely does: it defines 'modo=spazi' precisely (only spaces/line breaks differ, letters/digits/accents/punctuation untouched), clarifies citazione (verbatim, no corrections) and occorrenza (1-based). Only fonte_id is left without explanation.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Verifica una citazione letterale nel brano') and names the concrete outputs (link preciso e riquadri della scansione), making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like search, read_passages or view_scan.

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 operating context: copy the original text verbatim, approximate/semantic matches are rejected, and if the phrase repeats, use occorrenza starting from 1. It does not name alternative tools for looser-looking searches, so no explicit when-not guidance, but the constraints are usable.

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