Prima nota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that passing entry_id returns a single movement, which is useful behavioral context, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any authentication nuances.

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 description is front-loaded and appropriately sized, but it repeats content in Italian and English, and the English version omits the 'type' filter mentioned in Italian. Otherwise every sentence serves a purpose.

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 list tool with no output schema and safe-read annotations, the description covers the main operation and filters but omits return format, pagination behavior, and result volume. These are meaningful gaps given there is no output schema to compensate.

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 60%, with type and payment_account_id lacking schema descriptions. The description compensates by saying entries are filterable by type and balance account ('filtrabili per tipo e conto di saldo') and clarifies that entry_id returns a single movement, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists cashbook entries in a date range, optionally by payment account.' It also notes a single-entry mode with entry_id. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like fic_reconcile, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Utile per riconciliare con l'estratto conto della banca' (useful for reconciling with the bank statement). However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as fic_reconcile.

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