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 is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields (titolo, testo, URL da citare, metadati) and states a price-freshness caveat ('prezzi del listino di adesso; fa fede la scheda di trasparenza tariffaria'), which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and the required input, followed by the price caveat. No filler, though the enumeration of return fields is slightly redundant with the output schema.

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 structure need not be explained, yet the description still covers input provenance, id format, and the price-authority caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call fetch correctly is missing; the only mild redundancy is listing returned fields.

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 schema already documents the single id parameter, which justifies a baseline of 3. The description goes further by showing the id's actual syntax via three namespaced examples, giving the agent concrete pattern knowledge the schema lacks.

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 action (return the full text of a content) and the resource, and explicitly anchors it to the sibling tool that produces the input: 'un contenuto trovato con search'. The namespaced id examples ('offerta:…', 'pagina:…', 'comune:…') make the contract unambiguous, distinguishing it from search/siblings.

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 description makes clear this is the follow-up step to search and that the input must come from a search result. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, but for a single-purpose lookup tool the routing context is unambiguous.

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