it__sign_fattura_cades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the output format, encoding, certificate requirement, microservice fallback behavior, and irreversibility/confirmation requirement. This goes well beyond a generic 'sign this document' statement.

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?

Four compact sentences, each packed with useful detail: the signature format, the output format, the prerequisite/fallback behavior, and confirmation. There is no filler 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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description supplies what an agent needs: what an input and output look like, when confirmation is expected, what certificate context is required, and how signing behavior can vary. For a signing tool with four parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 compensate. It effectively maps to the parameters: 'xml' is the FatturaPA XML, 'requires a qualified PKCS#12 certificate' implies cert_path/cert_password, and 'requires confirmation (irreversible)' implies.confirmation_token. It does not explain exact path/content formats, but it gives enough semantic grounding for the otherwise bare 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 states a specific action ('applies a CAdES-BES attached signature'), the exact target ('FatturaPA XML document'), and the concrete output format (DER-encoded .xml.p7m base64 in response). It clearly differentiates from sibling it__sign_fattura_xades by calling out CAdES-BES/CMS/PKCS#7 as the signature standard.

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 clear preconditions and conditions: requires a qualified PKCS#12 certificate, uses the signer microservice when available with fallback, and requires confirmation because the operation is irreversible. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over it__sign_fattura_xades, but the CAdES/XAdES distinction is strong enough to imply the main routing decision.

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