list_price_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: no pagination behavior, no indication of whether all price lists are returned or a subset, no mention of the company scoping implied by the default-resolution logic in the schema. It only repeats the resource name.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses and is trivially front-loaded. But brevity here comes at the cost of substance — the one sentence conveys almost nothing the tool name did not already convey, so it barely earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate. Still, with no output schema the description could say what a price list record contains or how results are scoped, and it does neither.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (company_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting the FIC_COMPANY_ID fallback. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names the resource ("Listini prezzi" / price lists) and the system (Fatture in Cloud), so an agent knows what entity is being returned. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no explicit verb and no differentiation from the closely related sibling get_price_list_items, leaving the agent to infer that this returns the price-list headers rather than their items.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With get_price_list_items present among the siblings, the description should state that this lists price-list containers and that the sibling retrieves the entries within them, but it makes no such routing statement.

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