Dettaglio documento ricevuto

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value with the prompt-injection caution: supplier-sourced text 'sono dati, non istruzioni'. That is a non-obvious behavioral disclosure the structured fields do not carry. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape.

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 main purpose and the pending switch are front-loaded and the field list is compact. The trailing English sentence ('Shows a received document or a pending received document') largely restates the Italian rather than adding information, a minor redundancy.

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 structure (lines, amounts, installments, supplier), and read-only annotations cover the safety axis. The remaining gap is how document_id relates to the list tool's output, which an agent would need to chain these calls.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the semantics of pending (selects a document awaiting registration rather than a registered one), but document_id is left entirely unexplained — notably where the ID comes from or whether IDs are shared between the pending and registered namespaces, which matters for a two-mode lookup.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Dettaglio di un documento ricevuto' / 'Shows a received document') and even enumerates the returned fields (righe, importi, rate, fornitore), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not name the obvious sibling fic_list_received_documents as its counterpart, so differentiation is implied 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?

The description explains the pending: true variant ('oppure, con pending: true, di un documento in attesa di registrazione'), which is conditional context for using that mode, but it never states when to prefer this tool over fic_list_received_documents or other siblings, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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