get_constraints

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 discloses that the call is a single query, returns three kinds of data (dimensions, codes, labels), and notes that the parameter name changed from 'id_dataflow' in earlier versions. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not mention error conditions or permissions.

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 three sentences long, with the main purpose in the first sentence, differentiation in the second, and usage direction in the third. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 tool has only one required parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return formats. It covers the tool's role in the workflow ('before get_data'), the parameter source (in schema), and replaces older tools. A slight gap is that it doesn't explain how to construct the key_filter, but that is likely beyond the tool's scope.

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 already provides 100% coverage for dataflow_id, including an example and note about the previous parameter name. The description itself does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 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 states the tool 'retrieves dimensions (with their position), valid constrained code values, and human-readable Italian/English labels' for an ISTAT dataset. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it replaces get_structure and get_codelist_description and by emphasizing 'Single-Call'. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs 'Call this before get_data to build the key_filter', giving a clear temporal usage context. It also names the separate tools it replaces, effectively telling the agent which older alternatives to avoid. This provides both a when and a when-not.

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