Situazione: fatturato, incassi, costi

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it computes by 'leggendo tutte le pagine' (reading all pages, i.e. potentially expensive full scan) and that cash_basis also reads prior-year invoices, which is not derivable from annotations.

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 a scannable bullet breakdown of each computed figure, followed by worked examples. It is somewhat long and repeats itself with a trailing English sentence ('Revenue, collected, outstanding, overdue and costs...'), which is mildly redundant but the structure remains efficient.

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 complex 8-parameter aggregate tool with no output schema, the description effectively documents the return shape by enumerating each output figure (fatturato net/IVA/lordo, incassato, da incassare, scaduto, costi, differenza netta), so an agent knows what to expect without an output 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties cash_basis to reading prior-year invoices for payment-date collections, and notes that client_id restricts revenue while excluding costs. These behavioral couplings are not stated in the schema property text.

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: an economic summary ('Riepilogo economico') for a period, and enumerates exactly what it aggregates (revenue net/IVA/gross, collected, outstanding, overdue, costs, net difference, optional monthly detail). It is clearly distinguishable from list-style siblings like fic_list_issued_documents or fic_list_installments because it is an aggregate over a period rather than a document listing.

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?

Provides concrete invocation examples ('situazione dell'anno' -> {}; 'situazione del 2025 mese per mese' -> {year:2025, monthly:true}) that anchor how and when to call it, and implicitly establishes period-scoped usage. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to alternative siblings such as fic_list_cashbook or fic_list_installments for granular data.

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