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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: results are ordered nearest-first and each entry carries address, sizes, published price or "su richiesta", its page and a quote-request link. It does not discuss auth or any behavior when no location is supplied, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Each language half is well front-loaded (mode, then usage, then filters, then return shape), but the entire text is duplicated in Italian and English, doubling length with zero new information. The redundancy costs an agent tokens without adding clarity, which is a structural flaw rather than a benefit.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it still does so usefully. It covers both location modes and all meaningful filters. The one gap is that zero parameters are required, yet the description never says what happens on an empty call or how limite (default 10) shapes results.

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 eight parameters, including the mq semantics the description repeats verbatim ("only centres that declare that size"). The description does not mention limite at all and adds no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (find self-storage centres/depositories) and spells out the two distinct search modes: by Italian city (with optional district) or around a coordinate point. An agent can immediately tell this is the listing/search tool as opposed to the detail tool (dettaglio_centro) or the price tool (prezzi_citta).

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?

"Use it when a list of centres in a place is needed" gives a clear positive trigger, and the two-mode phrasing implicitly signals when each input style applies. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when-not to use this one, so the agent must infer the boundary with dettaglio_centro.

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