Elenchi di supporto

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 covered. The description goes beyond them by explaining what each list actually contains and by surfacing the conditional requirements (vat_types rows are referenced by id; cities requires postal_code or city), which is real operational context.

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 list enumeration and then the usage sentence, and each list entry earns its place by explaining content. However the trailing English summary largely repeats the Italian enumeration already given, adding length without new 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?

With 5 parameters, one required, no output schema and no nested objects, the description is complete enough: it explains what each list returns and how the results are consumed downstream. It does not need to describe return shape, though it leaves the exact output format unspecified.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds value beyond the schema by giving semantic meaning to each enum value (what a conto di saldo, aliquota IVA or centro di ricavo is used for) and by flagging the cities parameter dependency, so it rises above the baseline.

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 unambiguously identifies this as the company/general reference-data lookup and enumerates every list it exposes (payment_accounts, vat_types, cost_centers, cities, etc.). An agent can tell it apart from the document-, entity- and cashbook-oriented siblings because this is the tool that supplies IDs rather than consuming them.

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 states the operative purpose explicitly: 'Usalo per trovare gli ID da passare agli altri tool', with concrete examples (conto di saldo, aliquota IVA, metodo di pagamento, centro di ricavo). That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternative tools.

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