Oltre il Solco

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: results are the LATEST value per series with period, unit, source and page, not full time series — a distinction that matters against the leggi_serie sibling. It does not mention ranking or empty-result 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and searchable facets, followed by the return shape. The trailing English fragment 'Italian agricultural and water data' is low-value repetition but costs little.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing what each result contains (latest value, period, unit, source, page). Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the response; only result ordering and no-match handling are unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by clarifying that 'soggetto' can be a country, region, lake or river, which helps shape the free-text query. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Cerca) and resource (serie storiche di Oltre il Solco), names the subject domain and the facets searchable (indicatore, soggetto: Paese, regione, lago, fiume). It is distinguishable from elenca_indicatori and leggi_serie by implication, but the siblings are never named or contrasted explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though leggi_serie is the obvious next step once a series is found. The only usage signal is implicit: phrase a topic query and the tool searches by indicator and subject.

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 and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful value by specifying the returned content (indicators, subject counts, units, source), helping the agent understand the output in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention pagination or auth, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool measures and then the optional filter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 listing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and filter usage adequately. It could mention how it relates to sibling tools, but otherwise it is complete.

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 single optional parameter is already documented. The description adds concrete filter examples ('acqua', 'irrigazione', 'resa') that clarify the kind of keyword accepted, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 clearly what the tool returns: the indicators measured by Oltre il Solco, including subject counts, units and source. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools cerca_dati and leggi_serie, so it is clear but not sibling-aware.

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?

Provides guidance for the optional filter with examples ('acqua', 'irrigazione', 'resa'), but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. Usage is only implied (discover available indicators).

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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful output context: the series includes units, original source, and citation information, which helps the agent understand what will be returned.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by accepted input forms. No redundant or filler content.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (units, source, citation) and the two input modes. It could still clarify pagination or result format, but is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 all three parameters. The description reinforces that indicator and subject can be names or identifiers from cerca_dati, or that a page URL can be used instead, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 resource: the complete historical series of an indicator for a subject, including units, original source, and citation. It names cerca_dati as the source of identifiers, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from elenca_indicatori or fully articulate the verb 'leggi'.

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?

Indicates that indicator and subject can be names or identifiers returned by cerca_dati, or alternatively a page URL. This implies a workflow (use cerca_dati first) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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