novita_futura

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of explaining behavior. It does so by describing what is returned for each sezione value and clarifying the three distinct content categories. It doesn't explicitly discuss read-only guarantees, auth, or rate limits, but the operation is clearly a non-mutating retrieval, so this is a minor 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then parameter mapping. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, no required inputs, and no output schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the content, the user-intent triggers, and all parameter options.

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 schema provides only a parameter name and default, with zero description coverage. The tool description fully compensates by listing every accepted value for sezione and explaining exactly what each returns, making invocation unambiguous.

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 tool's function: retrieving the latest articles from Elettronica In, Elettronica In PRO, or products from FuturaShop. It names the specific resource and distinguishes it from siblings like notizie_italia and meteo tools by focusing on this specific publication/shop domain.

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 description gives explicit usage triggers: use it when the user asks for the latest news, articles, new magazine issues, or newly arrived products. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool, rather than a general news or weather sibling, is appropriate.

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