Dettaglio documento emesso

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 goes further by enumerating what is returned (customer, line items with rates, totals, payment method, installments with status, e-invoice status, blocked flag, temporary PDF link), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of error/not-found behavior or auth needs, so it is not a full 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 lookup mode and then the return payload, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. It is slightly padded by full Italian/English duplication of the same content, which doubles length without adding information.

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?

For a read-only single-document fetch with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers both how to identify the document and what data comes back, which is what an agent needs. Missing only edge-case behavior such as not-found handling or the expiry semantics of the temporary PDF link.

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%, so the schema already documents type, year, number, numeration and document_id. The description only restates the ID-vs-number+year choice and the '33/2026 -> {number:33, year:2026}' example, both of which the schema provides in nearly identical form. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Dettaglio di un documento emesso' / 'Shows one issued document'), and the singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling fic_list_issued_documents. It also names the two lookup keys (ID or number+year). The only gap is that the list sibling is not named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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?

Usage is implied: fetch the full detail of a single issued document when you have its ID or number/year. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor a pointer to fic_list_issued_documents for browsing or fic_download_file for the PDF beyond the temporary link mention. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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