riassumi_avviso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result is a draft requiring human verification, which is meaningful context beyond the schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, file-size or format limits, or failure behavior on unreadable PDFs.

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, no filler, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the critical caveat immediately after. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single fully-documented parameter is covered. The remaining gap is behavioral detail (read-only guarantee, what happens on malformed input) that an annotation would normally supply but does not here.

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% for the single 'percorso' parameter, which already documents that it is a path to a PDF or text file inside the roots. The description adds no additional meaning about the path format or expected directory, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (estrarre) and resource (avviso di sicurezza / FSN), which is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools (scadenze, cerca_apparecchi, report_conformita). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, but the resource specificity is enough for an agent to pick it correctly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the tool for pulling operational data out of a safety notice, and the second sentence tells the caller the output must be verified against the original. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any prerequisite such as the file being inside the roots.

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