audit_documents

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add scope and content — which it does by listing the four audit categories checked, giving real insight into what the call will surface. It stops short of saying whether results come back as a flat findings list, per-document flags, or counts, and says nothing about volume or pagination for large years.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then uses semicolons to enumerate checks economically — no filler. It is slightly run-on and mixes four distinct audit families into one breath, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back; the enumerated checks imply findings but the response shape (list of issues vs. counts vs. per-document objects) is unstated. For a two-optional-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap around return values and result volume.

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%: both parameters (year, company_id) already document their defaults (current year, FIC_COMPANY_ID or the token's sole company). The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never explains that the year parameter drives the numbering/date checks or how company scoping affects results. 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 states a specific operation on a specific resource ('Controlli sui documenti dell'anno') and then enumerates exactly which anomalies are detected: unsent/rejected e-invoices, missing stamp duty above 77,47 €, overdue payments, and numbering gaps/duplicates. An agent can tell this is an audit/report tool rather than a CRUD tool. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with near-neighbours like verify_einvoice, stamp_duty_report, or receivables_report.

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 scope is implied by 'dell'anno' plus the year parameter, so an agent knows this is a yearly audit sweep. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to the overlapping sibling reports that cover a subset of these checks (stamp_duty_report, receivables_report, verify_einvoice).

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