Stato della sessione

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 and the description only needs to add context. It adds that the tool reflects both a session check and any in-progress access, but says nothing about what happens when no session exists, whether it triggers authentication, or how it behaves under the open-world hint (network dependency, failure modes).

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the substantive scope (validity, expiry, in-progress access) comes first and the call-timing guidance follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what information the result holds (validity, expiry, access state) and when to invoke it. The main residual gap is what the agent should do on an invalid session, which is left to the sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; baseline applies. Nothing is missing or contradicted.

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 specific verbs and resources: it reports whether a valid session with the Banca Dati di Merito exists, when it expires, and the status of any access in progress. That is more than a restatement of the name, and it is distinguishable from search siblings, though it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from (e.g. accedi).

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?

"Chiamalo prima di una serie di ricerche" gives an explicit precondition and timing for calling it, which is clear actionable context. It stops short of naming the alternative action (calling accedi) when the session turns out to be invalid, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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