Leggi Testo Integrale Provvedimento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly reflects a safe, non-mutating operation. It adds useful implementation details: the tool operates by opening the detail page and clicking 'Mostra', and locates the full text in a hidden DOM element (.visually-hidden inside #document-modal), which goes beyond the annotation-only baseline.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and the second sentence provides a technical but relevant detail about DOM placement. No 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, source, and where to find the extracted text. It does not explicitly state the return format or potential edge cases, but the core functionality is clear; annotations further cover safety and idempotency.

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 single parameter 'url' is already fully described in the schema with the same source guidance (URL from detail page, from cerca_provvedimenti or cerca_abstract). The description reinforces this but does not add additional semantic details such as formatting or validation. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 tool extracts the full anonymized text of a measure, specifying the action (estrae), the resource (testo integrale anonimizzato di un provvedimento), and the method (from the detail page by clicking 'Mostra'). It also adds a distinguishing detail ('tutte le pagine') that differentiates it from potentially similar detail/abstract tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 some context by noting the URL comes from cerca_provvedimenti or cerca_abstract, implying it is a follow-up to search. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like leggi_dettaglio_provvedimento or leggi_abstract, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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