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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the search is limited to published properties and homonymous records can occur, so the agent should not silently pick one. It says nothing about how multiple matches are returned or ranked, which keeps it below 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?

Two tight sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, an agent still cannot tell what happens on ambiguity (multiple results vs. error), how matching is performed, or what 'language' affects — gaps that matter for correct invocation of a resolver.

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 0% for two parameters. The description only clarifies that 'name' is free text written by the user, hinting at fuzzy matching; it never explains the 'language' parameter (default 'ita'), the 4-160 character bounds, or case/diacritic handling. With zero schema coverage the description should compensate more than it does.

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 a *published* property from a name typed by the user. The 'published' qualifier and the name-based lookup distinguish it implicitly from get_property (ID-based) and resolve_location (geography), though no sibling is named 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?

The warning 'Non scegliere a caso fra strutture omonime' conveys that ambiguity is expected and must be surfaced to the user, which implies when to use it (name-to-entity resolution). But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer resolve_property over get_property or resolve_location, and no mention of calling it before availability checks.

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