Leggi il testo verificato di un articolo

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses crucial behavioral traps: `preambolo` means the response is a promulgation preamble, not the article; `abrogato` is information to report, not an error; and `vigenza_storica` indicates the text is historical, not current law. These are exactly the nonlinear behaviors an agent must know.

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 long but information-dense; every paragraph adds unique value (scope, historical caveat, three numbered traps, date-force parameter). It is front-loaded with the primary function and uses structured sections for warnings. The length is proportional to the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the high-stakes legal context and zero schema coverage, the description thoroughly covers usage, parameter meaning, edge cases, and interpretation of results. It even instructs the agent on how to present historical or abrogated text ('citalo sempre come storico', 'dillo con la data'). With an output schema present, no return-value documentation is needed.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility — and it delivers. It explains `fonte` with common aliases, `articolo` with extension examples ('21novies', '2645bis'), and `vigenza` with a format and purpose ('forza una data invece della ricaduta automatica'). All three parameters are semantically covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Legge il testo di un articolo di legge italiana', given source name and article number. It distinguishes itself from siblings by adding aliases, extension examples, and the explicit claim that for historical codes 'questa è l'unica via affidabile' — a clear differentiation from full-text search tools.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: for historical codes (civile, penale, etc.) this is the only reliable path, because the attachment number is not discoverable by full-text search. It also explains when to pass `vigenza` to force a date. It doesn't name sibling tools like normattiva_leggi_urn, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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