Cerca Abstract / Massime BDP

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It only states the search action; it does not disclose return format, pagination, potential need for authentication, or any other operational details. The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description, but no additional insights are offered.

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 description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded. However, it is slightly underspecified for the tool's complexity, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

This is a complex tool with 21 parameters, no per-parameter descriptions, and no output schema. The description provides no information about how to combine parameters, what the result body will look like, or any usage examples. It is grossly insufficient for an agent to effectively invoke the tool with correct arguments.

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 schema has 21 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description does not explain any of them. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. There is no mention of filter fields like 'anno', 'tipo', 'query', or 'materia', leaving the agent without any guidance on how to construct a valid search.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Cerca abstract/massime redazionali' (searches abstracts/editorial maxims) in a specific database (Banca Dati del Merito del Ministero della Giustizia). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the distinction from sibling tools like 'cerca_provvedimenti' is implied by the term 'abstract'.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the appropriate choice for searching abstracts as opposed to other content types, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. No alternative tools are referenced.

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