Dettaglio fattura

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful context that this is a metadata retrieval operation (distinct from download of binary files) and mentions what fields are returned (sender, recipient, status, SDI notifications). It doesn't describe error behavior for ambiguous identifiers (e.g., what happens if multiple identifiers given or none found), but with the read-only annotation and clear output framing, this is adequate.

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, zero waste. First sentence states the purpose and return contents; second sentence identifies the tool by an identifying parameter. Every phrase earns its place, and the alternative-tool pointer is compact. Excellent front-loaded structure.

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 single-invoice metadata lookup with read-only annotation, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, identification method, and directs binary downloads to the appropriate sibling. The only minor gap is not discussing multi-identifier scenarios or error/not-found behavior, but these are edge cases for a metadata tool with such well-documented parameters.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters including the direction enum semantics. The description adds value by clarifying that only ONE of id/filename/idSdi is needed (mutually exclusive choices), which is not explicit in the schema. However, since the schema already comprehensively documents each parameter, the description adds modest incremental value beyond structured coverage.

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?

Description states it returns complete metadata for a single invoice (sender, recipient, status, SDI notifications) with a specific verb (Restituisce) and resource (una singola fattura). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling download_invoice by explicitly mentioning XML/PDF/ZIP download goes there, and from search_invoices by focusing on a single invoice identified by one of three identifiers.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to retrieve metadata of a single invoice. It provides clear identification guidance (use id, filename, or idSdi) and explicitly directs users to download_invoice for XML/PDF/ZIP, giving an explicit alternative. This is excellent 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.