Giornata Mondiale

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only a list of returned content, which duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing new traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination. Minimal added behavioral value beyond annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its output come first and the id provenance is appended as a qualifying clause. Every clause earns its place.

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 a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, provenance of the id, and returned content. Return-format detail is unnecessary given the output schema, so nothing essential 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says a string of 1-300 characters, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully compensates by explaining that the id is an 'exact day identifier returned by search or list_days', telling the agent precisely where to source the value, though it doesn't describe the id's format.

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 (Fetch) and the resource it returns (published editorial text, dates, primary sources, correction history) for an exact day identifier. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the id comes from search or list_days, though the phrase 'day identifier' is slightly ambiguous about whether it fetches the day record or the editorial content.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: use this after obtaining an id from search or list_days, implying it is the retrieval step following discovery. It does not state when-not to use it or contrast further with list_days/list_topics, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further with useful behavior: the 366-day ceiling, the Europe/Rome default timezone, resolution of movable annual dates, and exclusion of expired recurrences.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, leading with the core action and scope, then layering defaults and edge-case handling. Every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to add operational context, and it does: range limits, timezone default, and recurrence handling. The main omission is any hint about filtering by topic or authority status, which the 6-param schema exposes.

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 50%; topic, start_date and end_date are documented in the schema. The description reinforces date semantics (single date, inclusive range, default-to-today) and the timezone default, but says nothing about limit, offset, or authority_status filtering.

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 ('List days') plus the scope of the operation (single date or inclusive range, max 366 days). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'search', which is the most plausible overlap, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concrete defaulting behavior (defaults to today in Europe/Rome) and the 366-day cap, which implies the intended usage window, but never says when to pick this over 'search' or 'fetch'. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral qualifier — only *public* topics are returned — but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the list is stable/cached.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded ahead of the follow-up usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the description's mention of returned fields, this is nearly complete; the only meaningful gap is the absence of any pagination or result-size guidance.

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 0% for limit and offset, so the description is the only place meaning could be added — and it adds none. The parameters are conventional pagination with defaults and bounds in the schema, so an agent can infer intent, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('List public topic names, slugs and record counts'), and even names the exact fields returned, so the agent knows the shape of the payload. It differentiates from siblings only indirectly, by pointing out that the emitted slugs feed 'search or list_days' rather than stating what this tool is not.

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?

The second sentence gives genuine downstream guidance on what to do with a slug ('use as the topic filter in search or list_days'), which implies this tool is the topic-discovery step before those calls. However, it never states when to call list_topics itself versus going straight to search/list_days, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return characteristic of 'citable records and explicit verification status', which is mildly useful but largely duplicated by the output schema, and it omits pagination behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the sibling pointer is placed last, which is exactly the right ordering.

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 re-explained, and the searchable-field list is helpful. But for a five-parameter tool the description leaves authority_status values (official/community/unreviewed) and pagination semantics undocumented, which are gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 20% across five parameters. The description clarifies that the required query is matched against title/official title/description/topic, which is genuine added meaning for query, but limit, offset and authority_status receive no semantic explanation anywhere, and topic only inherits a terse schema note.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (Italian world/international days) plus the fields matched against (title, official title, description, topic), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It hints at sibling separation via 'Use fetch for details' but doesn't distinguish itself from list_days or list_topics.

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?

'Use fetch for details' is an explicit routing rule for one alternative, which is real guidance. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this over list_days or list_topics, nor any when-not conditions, leaving the main sibling choice implied.

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