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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns only slug, title, and description (metadata), not full content, and points to leggi_guida for full content. It also reveals the total count (35), which is useful context beyond the basic function.

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 efficient and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose ('Indice delle 35 guide editoriali del sito'). It includes a useful enumeration of guide types in the first sentence, and the second and third sentences are direct and purposeful. There is no filler, though the first sentence is slightly dense.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns (slug, title, description), its scope (35 guides), and its relationship to leggi_guida. The schema covers the filter parameter, so the description is complete enough for effective use.

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?

The schema fully describes the single optional parameter 'categoria' with an enum and a clear description ('Filtra per categoria (opzionale)'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, but the schema alone is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as an index of 35 editorial guides, enumerating the content types (island guides, itineraries, etc.) and stating that each entry has slug, title, and description. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool leggi_guida by explicitly directing users there for full 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 explicitly says 'Per il contenuto completo usare leggi_guida' (use leggi_guida for full content), which is an explicit when-not-to-use and names the alternative. This makes the tool's scope clear: use it for the index/summaries, not for full guides.

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