Cerca Provvedimenti BDP

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—it does not mention return format, pagination, or that it returns a list of matching provisions. It essentially restates the tool's name and purpose without enriching the behavioral picture.

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, efficiently worded sentence that starts with the verb and clearly states the object. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity limits its overall utility.

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?

The tool is a complex search operation with 19 parameters and multiple sibling tools, yet the description provides no context on how to construct a search, what results to expect, or how it relates to other tools. Without an output schema or parameter documentation, the agent is left with almost no guidance. This is highly incomplete.

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?

With 19 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. It only vaguely hints at the 'tipo' parameter via the listed subtypes, but provides no meaning for 'query', 'full_text', 'data_da', 'data_a', 'max_results', or the many other filters. This is a severe gap.

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 verb 'cerca' (search), the resource ('provvedimenti'), the database ('Banca Dati del Merito'), and enumerates specific subtypes (sentenze, decreti, ordinanze). This is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cerca_abstract' or 'naviga_archivio'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include cerca_abstract, leggi_dettaglio_provvedimento, and naviga_archivio, the description should indicate whether this is the right tool for full-text search, filtering by metadata, or finding documents before reading details. No such context is provided.

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