Leggi Testo Abstract

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description aligns by saying 'Legge' (reads). The description adds that it reads the full text of an abstract including precedents, which is useful content-wise, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, authentication, or error handling. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the added value is moderate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the resource and its special features. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the tool retrieves the full text of an abstract, including precedents, which effectively describes the return value. It lacks explicit details about output format or error behavior, but these are not critical for a simple retrieval task. The context is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, clearly stating it is the detail page URL from specific search tools. The tool description adds no additional parameter explanation. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Legge' (reads) and a clear resource: the full text of a BDP abstract, further specifying that it includes conforming and non-conforming precedents. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like leggi_dettaglio_provvedimento and leggi_testo_provvedimento, which target different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the input schema for the 'url' parameter indicates that the URL comes from cerca_provvedimenti or cerca_abstract, which implies a search-and-read workflow. This gives a clear context but no explicit comparison to other tools.

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