quadro_lm

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's job is to add context — and it does, by disclosing that values are derived from Fatture in Cloud receipts and the stored tax profile, and that results should be verified by an accountant. It does not say what happens when no tax profile exists, when the year is not closed, or whether values are computed live.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the resource and scope, then lists the returned fields, followed by a short caveat sentence. Every clause carries information; the only friction is the untranslated Italian domain terminology, which may be opaque to a non-Italian agent.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned figures (ricavi, reddito, contributi dedotti, imposta, acconti, saldo), which is exactly what an agent needs to know before calling. Remaining gaps — behavior with missing tax profile or partial-year data — are modest for a read-only computation tool.

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%: both 'year' and 'company_id' are documented with their defaults. The description adds only the mild constraint that 'year' means a closed year and the note that figures derive from receipts and tax profile; it gives no guidance on company_id selection or on behavior across multiple companies.

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 a specific artifact (quadro LM values for the forfettario regime) and enumerates the contents returned: ricavi, reddito, contributi dedotti, imposta, acconti e saldo. It also states the data sources (incassi in Fatture in Cloud plus the tax profile), which lets an agent distinguish it from tax_estimate or regime_simulator. It loses a point only because 'quadro LM' is domain jargon whose sibling boundary is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'per un anno chiuso' implicitly restricts use to closed fiscal years, and the closing note 'Da controllare col commercialista' sets an expectation of human review before reliance. However, there is no explicit routing against the clearly related siblings (tax_estimate, regime_simulator, accountant_package, tax_deadlines_export), so the agent must infer which tool to pick.

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