Search services, clinics and doctors

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the Italian-language input requirement and the meaning of the returned flags (package=true for check-up packages, combinable=true for lab tests bookable together). It stops short of describing match fuzziness or any result-count limits.

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 purpose and the Italian-language constraint lead, followed by a short scannable id-to-sibling mapping and a compact example list. Every bullet carries routing or semantic information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by sketching the response shape (services[].id, clinics[].id, doctors[].id) plus the package/combinable flags. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and the sibling id mapping, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain the result.

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%, so the query parameter is already documented with an example, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value above that by specifying the language the query must be in and supplying five realistic query examples spanning service, package, clinic and doctor names.

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 ('Search cup24.it by name') and enumerates the three entity types covered: healthcare services, clinics and doctors, with concrete sub-categories (exams, visits, lab tests, check-up packages). An agent can immediately distinguish this from a lookup-by-city or an availability call.

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?

Gives a clear usage constraint ('Search in Italian') and routes the agent forward by mapping each returned id to the specific field of the specific sibling tool where it is consumed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer cup24_search_cities over this tool, though the field-based routing makes that largely self-evident.

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