it_dp_search_guidelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search but says nothing about result format, pagination, whether results are snippets or full text, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a zero-annotation tool this is a notable gap.

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 compact sentences, with the verb and resource front-loaded before the subtype enumeration. The trailing 'and more' is mild filler but the definition wastes no other space.

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?

A search tool with no output schema and no annotations needs the description to convey result shape and scoping, and this only conveys subject coverage. Parameters are fully documented in the schema, but return behavior and sibling routing are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's topic list (cookie, videosorveglianza, profilazione, telemarketing) loosely mirrors valid topic IDs but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Garante guidance documents'), then enumerates the document subtypes it covers (linee guida, provvedimenti generali, FAQ). It never names the closest sibling, it_dp_search_decisions, so the agent must infer the guidance-vs-decisions split from the resource noun alone.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The sibling it_dp_search_decisions covers a parallel search space and it_dp_get_guideline fetches a single document, yet neither is referenced. Coverage lists imply scope but give no selection criteria.

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