Leggi Dettaglio Provvedimento

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. The description adds value by specifying the three categories of data returned, but it does not disclose any potential prerequisites (e.g., session validation) or limitations, which is acceptable but not rich.

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 immediately states the action and the object. It contains no redundant words or explanation of obvious concepts, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description names the three data categories returned, giving the agent a clear sense of the tool's output. The parameter description in the schema covers the input expectation. Minor gaps remain, such as whether the timeline is full detail or summarised, but overall the tool is simple enough that the description is largely adequate.

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 input schema already provides a full description of the 'url' parameter, including its origin from cerca_provvedimenti or cerca_abstract. The tool description does not add any additional parameter context, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action 'Legge' (reads) and specifies the exact resource 'metadati completi, timeline gradi di giudizio e abstract collegati di un provvedimento BDP'. This distinguishes it from siblings like leggi_abstract and ottieni_timeline by combining all three components into a single detail retrieval.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as leggi_abstract or ottieni_timeline. The only implied usage is through the composition of metadata, timeline, and abstracts, but there is no mention of exclusions or when to prefer separate tools.

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