apparecchi_coinvolti

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: it never reports 'no device involved' without showing what was checked. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, permissions, error behavior, or return structure beyond that guarantee.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison and followed by a useful behavioral guarantee. No filler, though the second sentence could be slightly more precise about what 'cosa è stato controllato' includes.

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?

The description states the purpose and one output guarantee, which is adequate for a simple comparison tool with fully documented parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves return format, read-only safety, and inventory source implicit.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax, format, or matching semantics for produttore, modello, or seriali beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Confronta') and resources ('seriali di un avviso di sicurezza (FSN)' and 'inventario'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cerca_apparecchi, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose implies the tool is used when checking FSN serials against inventory, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The second sentence is a behavioral guarantee rather than usage guidance.

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