cerca_normativa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the explanatory burden. It discloses the BM25 ranking behavior, the result fields, the effect of solo_vigenti, and the instruction to cite act and article. It conveys that this is a read/search operation, and there are no hidden destructive side effects.

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 description is compact and every sentence earns its place: the search behavior, the mandatory usage instruction, the output citation rule, and parameter semantics are all included without waste. The imperative 'USA SEMPRE' is intentionally attention-grabbing and reinforces the priority of this tool.

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?

The description is nearly complete for invocation: it explains purpose, when to use, all parameters, and the structure of results. It could be slightly richer by explaining how it relates to sibling tools or what to do when the ordinary law details are not sufficient, but nothing essential is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by defining every parameter: query as free text, solo_vigenti as excluding repealed acts, and limit as the maximum number of extracts with a default of 8. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 clearly states the tool searches Italian legislation and returns the most relevant normative extracts using BM25 ranking, which is specific and action-oriented. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools, but the search scope is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from leggi_atto and info_corpus.

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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: always use this tool before answering Italian law questions and do not answer from memory. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so the guidance is strong on when but not on exclusions.

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