cerca_apparecchi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact - a hard cap of 50 rows - but says nothing about matching semantics (fuzzy vs exact, case sensitivity), sort order, or whether the 50-row cap is a silent truncation with no way to page further (the schema has no paging parameter). That last omission is the most consequential gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the result-size constraint; no filler and no restating of the tool name. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, which is an under-specification problem captured elsewhere, not a conciseness problem.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics but not enough to call it safely: truncation at 50 rows is mentioned without saying whether it is silent or whether results are ranked, and there is no mention of read-only nature or matching behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema field itself enumerates what is searched (serial number, type, model, manufacturer, department). The description adds nothing about the single parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies - the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: searching equipment in the inventory, plus the shape of the result (at most 50 rows). That is enough to know what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings such as apparecchi_coinvolti or report_conformita, so the agent has no explicit basis for choosing among them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this search versus apparecchi_coinvolti, scadenze, or report_conformita, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the word 'cerca' and the inventory scope, which is weak guidance given four or five sibling tools operating on the same domain.

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