list_pending_received_documents

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the returned field set (supplier, date, number, net, VAT, total, due date, XML/attachment availability, plus totals) and the default SdI provenance. It does not describe pagination or ordering behavior when limit is hit.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the long field enumeration is dense and the flat-rate tax caveat, while useful context, is tangential to selecting or invoking the tool and could be trimmed.

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, describing the returned fields is necessary and the description does it thoroughly, and the four input parameters are mostly documented by the schema. For a read-only filtered list tool this is close to complete, missing only result-ordering/pagination detail.

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 75% with descriptions already on q, source and company_id, so the schema carries most of the load. The description only indirectly reinforces source (SdI = agyo) and says nothing extra about q syntax or the limit cap.

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 (passive invoices awaiting registration arriving from SdI) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from the generic list_received_documents by the 'in attesa di registrazione' qualifier. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (list_received_documents, register_pending_received_documents) directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description frames the tool as the view of what is pending registration and notes that flat-rate regime invoices can still be archived, which hints at the follow-up action. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or pointer to get_pending_received_document or register_pending_received_documents.

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