Leggi Testo Integrale Provvedimento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those annotations: it reveals that the tool navigates to the detail page, clicks 'Mostra', and that the full text is located in the DOM under '.visually-hidden' inside '#document-modal'. This gives concrete expectations of tool behavior.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides a precise implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it explains what is extracted, where it comes from, and where the data resides in the DOM. It stops short of explicitly describing the return format or how the agent should consume the extracted text, but for a one-parameter read-only extraction tool this is a minor gap.

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%, with the single 'url' parameter clearly described as the detail page URL from 'cerca_provvedimenti' or 'cerca_abstract'. The description does not add any extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool extracts the full anonymized text of a provision ('Estrae il testo integrale anonimizzato di un provvedimento'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'leggi_abstract' and 'leggi_dettaglio_provvedimento' by emphasizing complete text extraction via the detail page.

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 procedural guidance ('aprendolo dalla pagina dettaglio e cliccando "Mostra"') and implies the tool is used when full text is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or other tool recommendations.

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