Provvedimenti pubblicati

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are aggregated two different ways and include areas other than CIVILE, which could otherwise mislead an agent. It says nothing about result format, size, or refresh recency.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core question ('Quanti ... ha pubblicato') followed by the two aggregation modes. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing clause about non-CIVILE areas is slightly cryptic in placement.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only count tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: what is counted, the two grouping levels, and the caveat about other areas. The exact response fields are not spelled out, but the shape (totals per district / per office) is conveyed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the parameter changes: without it you get district-level totals, with it you get a row per office within that district. That grouping semantics is not derivable from the schema's 'Distretto di corte d'appello, per esempio BOLOGNA'.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ('Quanti provvedimenti e abstract ... ha pubblicato'), making clear this is a counting/aggregation tool rather than a document retriever like the cerca_* siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the distinction from cerca_provvedimenti or frequenze_parole_chiave is only implicit in the word 'Quanti'.

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 implies usage (ask for totals when you want counts, add `distretto` for per-office breakdown) but never states when to prefer this over cerca_provvedimenti or elenca_uffici, nor any prerequisites. The conditional phrasing 'oppure, con `distretto`' is a useful usage hint but not an explicit when/when-not rule.

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