it_dp_search_decisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (reference, entity name, fine amount, GDPR articles) and the Italian-language search requirement, but says nothing about result volume/pagination behavior, empty-result handling, or any rate/permission constraints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource before the return-fields and language hints. No filler, though the language hint overlaps with the schema's query description.

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 no output schema, the description properly compensates by naming the fields returned (reference, entity, fine amount, GDPR articles) and the search language. It is adequate for calling the tool, missing only routing guidance to it_dp_get_decision for follow-up retrieval.

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 four parameters including the type enum and topic/limit defaults. The description adds only a reinforcement of the Italian query convention, which is already present in the query parameter description; it does not clarify query-vs-topic interplay.

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 ('full-text search') and resource (Garante decisions, with provvedimenti/sanzioni/ordinanze enumerated), which an agent can distinguish from sibling search tools like it_dp_search_guidelines. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_decisions/get_guidelines tools, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 word 'search' plus the query examples implies when to use this over a get-by-id tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative (e.g., it_dp_get_decision for a known decision). Usage is implied, not guided.

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