Catalogo delle operazioni API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: the catalog size (123 operations), the API version, and — importantly, given there is no output schema — that a detail lookup returns parameters, body fields, scope, request mode and the recommended execution tool. It stops short of describing search-result shape or pagination, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource and sized appropriately for a two-mode tool. The final English sentence is a redundant translation of the preceding Italian text rather than new information, which is the only wasted content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what the operation_id detail returns. It also covers the workflow hand-off to fic_api_read/fic_api_write. What is missing is any statement about the search-result payload itself (list of operation ids? titles?) or whether all four parameters are meant to be combined.

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 75%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning; the description maps the three selector modes to their intent ('per parola chiave, gruppo o effetto'), matching query/tag/effect, and clarifies that operation_id switches to single-operation detail mode. It adds the relational semantics (search vs. detail) that the flat schema does not express, though it does not add per-parameter examples beyond the schema's own.

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 ('Cerca tra tutte le 123 operazioni dell'API v2 di Fatture in Cloud'), and the scope is quantified and versioned. It also defines the second mode of operation ('Con operation_id restituisce il dettaglio'), which lets an agent distinguish it from ordinary read tools like fic_api_read without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this catalog for anything the dedicated tools do not cover, and it enumerates those uncovered domains (prodotti/magazzino, corrispettivi, F24, archivio, impostazioni, cestino, listini, email, webhook). It also names the downstream tools ('Poi esegui con fic_api_read o fic_api_write'), giving a complete discover-then-execute workflow.

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