Leggi Dettaglio Provvedimento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Legge' aligns with these. The description adds that three data types are retrieved (metadata, timeline, abstracts), but does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the key output components without repetition or fluff. It is concise and immediately comprehensible to a domain-aware agent.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately outlines the expected data (metadata, timeline, abstracts). It does not detail the exact return structure, but for a simple read tool this provides sufficient context for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains that the URL must come from search tools. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, but the baseline for high schema coverage is met.

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 states the tool reads ('Legge') complete metadata, judgment timeline, and linked abstracts for a BDP provision. This specific verb+resource scope differentiates it from siblings like leggi_abstract and ottieni_timeline, which focus on individual components.

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 implies use when a comprehensive detail view is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter schema adds context that the URL comes from cerca_provvedimenti or cerca_abstract, but the main description lacks direct usage guidance.

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