Mostra stato locale di quota, cache e cooldown

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait not captured by annotations: it does not use the network and operates on local state ('Non usa la rete', 'stato locale'). It also explains what the report contains (real requests, cache hits, errors, density, cooldown), which is useful context beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two short sentences, with the most important fact (no network, local state) front-loaded and the usage guidance placed second. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it says what the tool does, that it is local, what metrics it shows, and when to invoke it. No return-format explanation is needed because the output schema already covers that.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to explain. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not attempt to invent unnecessary parameter detail.

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 specific verb ('Mostra' / shows) and a clear resource: local state of quota, cache, and cooldown, along with daily aggregates. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup tools by explicitly saying it does not use the network ('Non usa la rete'), making its role as a status/health tool unambiguous.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: use it before an activity with multiple consultations ('Usalo prima di un'attività con più consultazioni'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but this is clear, actionable context for an agent choosing between this status tool and the sibling legal-research tools.

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