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.