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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists content categories and does not explain the return format, whether a parameter is required, how matching works, or any limitations (e.g., what happens if no excursion matches). This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema or annotation hints.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Dettagli pratici di un'escursione') followed by a concise list of covered topics. It is efficient with no redundant words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated into purpose and scope).

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 simple read-only info tool, the description adequately communicates the type of information returned. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., whether one of id or nome is required, what the response object looks like, and how it differs from similar tools). Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these omissions prevent higher completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and nome) with descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on output content instead. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool provides practical details of an excursion, listing specific fields (difficulty, minimum age, suitability, starting point, what to bring, included services, notice days). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dettaglio_offerta' (offer details) and 'info_pratiche' (general practical info), as it is specifically for excursions and enumerates its 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?

The description implies usage when a user asks for practical details of a specific excursion, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'info_pratiche' or 'dettaglio_offerta'. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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