Cerca clienti e fornitori

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: with no query it lists everything paginated, and it establishes the client-by-default selection. It does not disclose the return shape, but that gap is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the examples are compact and useful. The bilingual restatement (Italian then English) is somewhat redundant, and the English sentence adds only the field list already given, so it is efficient but not perfectly tight.

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 6-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, defaults, and pagination behavior adequately. The main omission is the meaning of the sort enum values, which is left entirely to 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 description coverage is 83% (above the 80% baseline), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mostly duplicates the query field's field-list, though the inline examples ({query:"Rossi"}, {kind:"supplier", query:"Enel"}) add concrete usage value. It contributes nothing for the undescribed 'sort' parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Cerca/Search) plus resource (clienti/fornitori nell'anagrafica) and enumerates the searchable fields (nome, codice, partita IVA, codice fiscale, email). An agent can immediately tell this is a paginated entity-search tool and distinguish it from single-record tools like fic_get_entity.

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 clarifies the default (kind=client) and the no-query fallback ('senza query li elenca tutti, a pagine'), which implies when to use it. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling search/list tools (fic_get_entity, fic_reference_data, fic_list_*), so usage selection is left to inference.

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