Rate e scadenze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond that by describing the return shape (one row per installment with status, days late, account, payment date) and the extra client-level summary produced by group_by_client. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, but they are not expected here.

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 core purpose, then grouping behavior, then examples — a sensible order. The only waste is the final English sentence, which duplicates content already stated in Italian and adds no new semantics.

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 14-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates by explaining what each returned row contains and what the grouped summary includes. The main residual gap is pagination/return-volume behavior, though 'limit' with its default is documented in the schema.

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 86%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by disambiguating the six confusing date parameters through examples: 'scadenze' correctly maps to due_from/due_to, 'incassi' to paid_from/paid_to, and document-date filtering is implied separately. This is meaning the schema text alone does not convey.

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+resource with scope: 'Elenca le singole rate (scadenze di pagamento) di tutti i documenti, una riga per rata'. It also enumerates the row-level fields (stato, giorni di ritardo, conto, data di pagamento), which distinguishes it from fic_list_issued_documents, whose granularity is the document rather than the installment.

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?

Three worked examples map natural-language intents ('quali rate sono scadute e non pagate', 'rate in scadenza a novembre', 'incassi di settembre') to concrete parameter sets, and it names the group_by_client scenario ('base per i solleciti'). It never explicitly names an alternative sibling or an exclusion condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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