Get Regime Fiscale Codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'Always succeeds' and explicitly documents the return shape as {'codes': [{'code': str, 'description': str}, ...], 'total': int}. It also provides useful domain context about RF01 and RF19, exceeding what annotations would normally convey.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main action, the code range, and the return type appear immediately. The explanatory sentences about RF01 and RF19 earn their place by helping an agent choose the correct code before validation. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and that it always succeeds. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and integrate it into the invoice-building workflow.

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 no parameter semantics to explain. The 100% schema coverage and empty input schema mean nothing is missing. The description adds relevant detail about the return values, which is appropriate for this no-parameter lookup tool.

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: 'Return the complete list of RegimeFiscale codes (RF01–RF19) with descriptions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling code-list tools like get_tipo_documento_codes and get_natura_codes by naming the exact code range and subject.

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 usage context: 'Call this to look up the correct fiscal regime code before calling validate_cedente_prestatore().' It also explains why the lookup matters ('Every Italian seller must declare a regime'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the workflow positioning is clear.

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