Cerca rifugi e bivacchi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and incompleteness profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning that bed counts and contact data depend on OSM mapping and may be missing, which helps an agent set expectations about result quality.

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 carry the needed information with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is placed second where it does not obscure the core function.

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, return values need not be described. The description sufficiently covers search scope, result subject matter, and data completeness caveats. It could mention the radius bounds explicitly, but the schema already provides default and maximum values, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema only describes raggio_km (33% coverage), while lat and lon have no semantic descriptions. The description adds the concept of a radius from a point, which loosely explains lat/lon and raggio_km, but it does not specify coordinate format, CRS, or clarify that the radius is in kilometers beyond the schema's own minimal note.

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 names a specific verb ('Cerca') and resource ('rifugi gestiti, bivacchi e ripari') and adds the spatial scope ('entro un raggio da un punto'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerca_sentieri and cerca_localita.

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 phrase 'entro un raggio da un punto' implies the use case of finding shelters near a location, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tool names provide context but no direct exclusion guidance.

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