Archivio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the output grouping dimension changes with the arguments supplied. It does not describe the shape of the counts or what happens with partial combinations beyond the stated hierarchy, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 purpose in the first clause, then a compact argument-to-grouping table, then a routing note. Four short sentences, no filler, and each one carries distinct 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 no output schema and six optional parameters, the description covers the drill-down logic and the sibling routing well enough to call the tool correctly. It leaves the area/penale distinction and the form of returned counts to the schema or to inference, a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the role of distretto, ufficio, materia, anno and mese in the aggregation hierarchy — meaning the schema alone would not convey. It never mentions the area parameter (default CIVILE, which also counts PENALE), leaving one materially relevant parameter explained only by 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Conteggi dell'archivio della Banca Dati") and anchors it to a concrete referent (the Archivio section of the site). It explicitly separates itself from cerca_provvedimenti, so an agent can tell counting from listing without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit drill-down rule keyed to which argument is supplied: no args = per distretto, distretto = per ufficio, ufficio = per materia with optional anno/mese. It also names the alternative tool and the exact criterion to use for listing rulings, leaving nothing to inference.

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