Cerca sentieri escursionistici

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

The annotations already convey read-only and open-world behavior, so the description need not repeat that safety profile. It adds a useful data-provenance detail ('relation OSM route=hiking') and the numbered-trail scope, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or data completeness caveats beyond what the annotations imply.

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?

The definition is three short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The `ref` hint and the OSM source sentence add useful context rather than filler, and there is no redundant prose.

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?

Given the high schema coverage, output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The only real gap is the mention of a geographic bounding-box mode that does not correspond to any input parameter, which creates slight ambiguity.

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 seven parameters. The description's only parameter-related addition is the `ref` example ('103'), which duplicates the schema's own description, so it adds little beyond the structured 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?

The description clearly identifies the operation ('Cerca sentieri escursionistici numerati') and the two location modes, so the verb and resource are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'cerca_ricoveri' and 'dettaglio_sentiero', but it never names an alternative and the 'per riquadro geografico' mode is not reflected in the input schema.

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?

It provides clear context: use this when searching for numbered hiking trails by area or point, and it tells the agent where to put the trail number (`ref`). However, it does not say when not to use it or recommend a sibling such as `dettaglio_sentiero` for trail details, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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