Bollettino valanghe

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

Annotations already cover read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the data must always be presented with a reference to the official bulletin and is not a risk assessment. It also discloses the output format, which is useful for downstream handling.

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?

Three short sentences, all informative: purpose, identifier pattern, and an important usage caveat. No redundant wording, and the key function is front-loaded.

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 and annotations covering the read-only nature, the description covers the essential operational and presentational requirements. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning when to use related tools, but for its complexity it is complete enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for zona_id by specifying the 'IT-21-...' identifier convention for AINEVA zones, which helps agents construct valid inputs. It also ties the provider concept to the zone type, going slightly beyond the schema text.

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 states the function: returning the current avalanche bulletin for a zone, with format details (CAAML v6, EAWS profile). It is distinct from siblings like cerca_sentieri or meteo_quota, though it does not explicitly name the closely related zona_valanghe_da_coordinate as an alternative.

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 need for a zone ID is implied by 'per una zona' and the example identifier pattern, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, such as using zona_valanghe_da_coordinate first to obtain the zone ID, or when not to use it.

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