Dettaglio cliente o fornitore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the conditional behavior that installment data is appended for clients, which is helpful but thin; nothing is said about not-found errors or id scoping.

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 content is front-loaded and the key capability (full record, plus optional installments for clients) appears in the first two sentences. The bilingual duplication repeats the same information in Italian and English, which is slightly wasteful but keeps each sentence short.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the optional installment extension, which is the main thing an agent needs to know before calling. It is slightly incomplete on id format and error behavior for a missing entity, but overall adequate for a 3-parameter read 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 67%: kind and include_open_installments carry inline descriptions, while the required id does not. The description names include_open_installments and explains its effect, but that restates the schema, and it adds no meaning for id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 (a single client/supplier record) and enumerates what the full record contains: tax data, address, contacts, SDI code, default payment terms and method. It is clearly a detail fetch rather than a list, but it never names fic_search_entities or any sibling, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this tool is for fetching one entity once an id is known, and the description does state the condition under which include_open_installments applies ('per i clienti'). There is no explicit when-to-use versus fic_search_entities or fic_list_installments, and no stated prerequisites.

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