Cerca una fonte nella tabella verificata

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it performs no network request, operates on a local verified table, and explicitly handles the case where a source is known but absent from Normattiva, clarifying that absence is from the site, not from the legal order. 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, each earning its place: the first states the function and outputs, the second gives a clear usage directive, and the third covers an important edge case. The key directive is front-loaded and the text is free of 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?

Given the single parameter, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, when to prefer it, what it returns, and how to interpret a notable edge case. No critical guidance for correct 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 carry the parameter semantics. It does so by explaining that 'testo' is a name or alias, and by warning against guessing date or allegato. This gives the agent meaningful guidance, though it stops short of giving concrete formats or examples.

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 ('Cerca') and resource ('fonti nella tabella locale di quelle verificate'), and clearly scopes the behavior: no network request, returns tipo di atto, data, numero, allegato, stato. It also differentiates itself from likely siblings by emphasizing it is for finding/resolving a source before reading history, not for reading articles or generating links.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'USALO PRIMA di leggere un codice storico se non sei sicuro dell'alias esatto'. It also explains the consequence of the alternative behavior (guessing date or allegato produces a wrong URN), which helps the agent decide correctly.

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