Info account Aruba

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read operation. The description adds value by enumerating specific data returned (partita IVA, codice fiscale, service status, storage space used), which goes slightly beyond the annotation. It doesn't disclose response format or pagination, but for a 0-parameter info tool this is acceptable.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the specific data fields returned. It's compact and information-dense with no filler. Could arguably add sibling differentiation but that's not a conciseness concern.

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 0-parameter, read-only info tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete — it states what the tool does and what data it returns. No output schema exists, so the field enumeration compensates somewhat for for the lack of structured return info, though exact return format remains unspecified.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. With no params at all, the baseline of 4 applies — the description correctly focuses entirely on what the read operation returns rather than param syntax.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource ('Restituisce le informazioni dell'account Aruba Fatturazione Elettronica') and enumerates exactly what fields are returned (partita IVA, codice fiscale, stato del servizio, spazio di conservazione). It's distinct from sibling tools which are all invoice-centric operations.

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 implies this is a read-only account-info retrieval tool distinct from the invoice operations of siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, though the account-info scope naturally differentiates it from invoice-specific tools.

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