Costruisci la citazione Markdown di un articolo

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious behavior: the portal permalink returns HTTP 200 even for wrong URNs, so verification is the only real proof of validity. It also warns that failures, abrogated acts, or preamble results are communicated in `avviso` and should not be ignored.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: output and use case, verification caveat, and warning about `avviso`. The key routing information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers routing, safety, output shape, and the important behavioral caveats, and an output schema exists. The only material shortfall is that the required parameters are not fully self-described and depend on the sibling reference, which prevents a perfect completeness score.

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 carries most of the burden. It clearly explains `verifica` and its trade-offs, and it references `normattiva_leggi_articolo` for the shared parameters. However, `fonte`, `vigenza`, and `articolo` are never directly defined, leaving the agent to resolve the sibling reference or infer formats.

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 states a concrete output (`[testo](permalink)` for an article) and explicitly distinguishes the tool from normattiva_leggi_articolo by noting it does NOT return the full text. This makes the tool's role unambiguous and immediately tells an agent which tool is which.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'quando serve solo il link da inserire in un parere o in un atto' and names the sibling tool that returns the full text. It also gives conditional guidance on when `verifica=true` vs `verifica=false` is appropriate.

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