Cerca Abstract / Massime BDP

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Cerca' (search) is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation and tool name imply, such as result limits, default sorting, pagination, or any search idiosyncrasies.

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 a single, direct Italian sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and target, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 tool with 21 optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, a one-line description is insufficient. It fails to mention how filters interact, default behavior, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate.

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?

With 21 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description does nothing to explain the meaning or usage of parameters like tipo_ricerca, sort_field, or max_results. It only identifies the general search target, leaving agents to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cerca' / 'search') and a clear resource ('abstract/massime redazionali' / editorial abstracts/headnotes) in the context of the Merit Database of the Ministry of Justice. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools such as cerca_provvedimenti, which targets rulings rather than abstracts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cerca_provvedimenti or leggi_abstract. There are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or mentions of how this search differs from searching full court decisions.

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