Account e azienda attiva

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it reveals the server mode can be readonly/write/full (governing what else is possible) and flags that plan usage costs 4 extra API requests, which is real cost/auth context.

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 Italian sentences are well front-loaded and information-dense, but the final English sentence is a straight restatement of the opening enumeration with no new content, so a third of the text is duplication.

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 does the necessary work of enumerating return fields (user, companies, active company, server mode, quota, plan usage). For a one-parameter read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, this is nearly sufficient; only pagination/format details are absent and largely irrelevant here.

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% and the single parameter already documents that include_plan_usage adds 4 requests. The description merely restates that plan usage is optional ('facoltativamente'), adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific resource (the connected Fatture in Cloud account) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: user, accessible companies with plan, active company, server mode, remaining API quota, and optional plan usage. It is clearly distinguishable from document/entity siblings, though it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative such as fic_situation.

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 concrete trigger conditions: use it at the start to understand what is possible, or when an error mentions token, company, or permissions. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no exclusions or explicit alternatives for overlapping discovery tools like fic_situation.

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