Ottieni Timeline Gradi di Giudizio

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds context about operating on a page detail but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling or authentication needs.

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 directly states the purpose with no unnecessary words or duplication.

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 tool with one parameter, read-only/it idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and input context. The output concept ('catena dei gradi di giudizio') is implied but not detailed in structure, which is acceptable for this simplicity.

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 input schema has only 'url' with format uri and 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying that the URL should point to the detail page of a BDP provision, adding meaningful semantic context to the parameter.

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 specific action (Estrae/extracts) and resource (catena dei gradi di giudizio/chain of judgment degrees) from a provision detail page. It distinguishes itself from siblings like leggi_dettaglio_provvedimento (full detail) and cerca_provvedimenti (search).

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 usage by explaining what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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