Leggi un URN Normattiva già in mano

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

Annotations already signal read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral caveats beyond annotations: an HTTP 200 does not guarantee correct content, the `esito` field must always be checked, and the same traps as normattiva_leggi_articolo apply (preamble, repealed, historical validity). No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first states purpose, the second warns about behavioral pitfalls, and the third routes to the correct sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, read-only annotations, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential operational context: what to pass, when to use it, when not to use it, and what to verify in the response. Nothing an agent needs for safe invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the single `urn` parameter should be a complete URN already obtained elsewhere and warns against passing a manually assembled URN. It doesn't provide a formal format example, but for a single string parameter the semantic guidance is strong.

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 URN completo già ottenuto altrove.' It clearly distinguishes itself from normattiva_leggi_articolo by positioning itself as the tool for URNs already in hand, not for manual URN construction.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (URN obtained elsewhere, e.g., a normative reference inside another article) and when not to use it (do not build an URN by hand from source+article). It names the alternative, normattiva_leggi_articolo, and reinforces the condition to check the `esito` field.

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