Leggi Testo Abstract

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns the full abstract text and includes both conforming and non-conforming precedents, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and scope without unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with strong annotations, the description adequately explains the purpose and key output elements (full text and precedents). It does not detail pagination or error cases, but those are not critical for this straightforward read operation.

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% with a clear description of the url parameter (origin from cerca_provvedimenti or cerca_abstract). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Legge' - reads) and resource ('testo completo di un abstract BDP') and uniquely mentions 'con precedenti conformi e difformi', distinguishing it from sibling tools like leggi_testo_provvedimento and leggi_dettaglio_provvedimento.

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 parameter description indicates the URL comes from cerca_provvedimenti or cerca_abstract, implying usage after search, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like leggi_testo_provvedimento or ottieni_precedenti.

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