build_dati_generali

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool validates input (TD01–TD28, YYYY-MM-DD data, 20-char numero), enforces a workflow precondition, sets reference fields for credit/debit notes, and returns either {'DatiGenerali': {...}} or {'error': '<reason>'}. This gives a clear picture of side effects and failure modes.

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?

Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: the purpose, the workflow position, how to select the TD code, credit/debit note required fields, validation rules, and return shapes. It is dense but not redundant, with critical instruction front-loaded.

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 schema covers all parameters and the output schema is declared, the description fills the remaining gaps: how the block fits into the larger generation workflow, relationship with get_tipo_documento_codes, special handling for credit/debit notes, validation rules, and success/error return shapes. Nothing an agent would need to call this tool correctly 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?

The schema already covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful conditional semantics beyond the schema: credit notes use TD04, professional fee invoices use TD06, and id_documento_riferimento/data_documento_riferimento must be used together for TD04/TD05. It also clarifies that divisa defaults to EUR for cross-border invoices, going beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Build' with the resource 'DatiGenerali block required in every FatturaElettronicaBody', making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that build other blocks or validate parts of an invoice. It also places the tool in a named workflow, further identifying its role.

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 places the tool in step 6 of the workflow, identifies the previous (validate_cessionario) and next (add_linea_dettaglio) steps, and mandates calling get_tipo_documento_codes() first. It even gives conditional guidance for credit notes (TD04) and debit notes (TD05) regarding reference identifiers, so an agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it.

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