Ottieni Precedenti Conformi/Difformi

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 that the tool works on the detail page and supports conformi/difformi types, but does not disclose further behavior such as output format, pagination, or error conditions. This is adequate 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 states the action, object, and source without any filler. Every word adds value.

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 read-only extraction tool with clear annotations and only two parameters, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention the return structure or prerequisites, but the detail-page source and type selection are communicated. No output schema exists, yet the description's simplicity suffices.

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 50%: url has a description, tipo has an enum but no text description. The description and title clarify the meaning of tipo via 'conformi e/o difformi', which partially compensates. However, the description does not explicitly map parameters to their roles, so it stays at baseline.

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 'Estrae' (extracts) with a clear resource 'lista di precedenti' and scopes the operation to 'pagina dettaglio di un abstract BDP'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like leggi_abstract or ottieni_timeline, none of which mention precedents.

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 when to use the tool (when needing precedents from an abstract detail page) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks a 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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