ask_intesa

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Intesa runs inside the seller's account, takes up to a minute due to a multi-step tool loop, and can perform bulk jobs, search history, and read support docs. This provides useful context about latency and scope, though it does not explicitly warn about potential side effects of bulk actions.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: defining the assistant, listing capabilities, contrasting with direct tools, and setting latency expectations. It is front-loaded with the name and purpose, and contains no filler.

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 complexity of this open-ended assistant tool and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: capabilities, use case, latency, and relationship to sibling tools. It hints at return values by mentioning the conversation_id, but does not detail the reply format, which would be difficult for such a flexible tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for practical use.

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 both message and conversation_id fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; the only extra is the mention that conversation_id allows threading, but this is already in the schema description. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as an assistant to be asked questions, using the verb 'Ask' with the resource 'Intesa'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it can do things the MCP server cannot, such as diagnosing sync issues and explaining listing errors, making its purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly advises to prefer direct tools like list_products, crosslist, and get_orders for simple reads and writes, and to use this tool for diagnostic or open-ended questions. It even provides an example ('why did my last five Vinted listings fail?'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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