Attivita Legislativa

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Cerca' clearly indicates a read/search operation, and 'Dati curati Openpolis' adds data provenance. However, it does not mention potential behavior like returning all results when no filters are provided, pagination, or any rate limits. The read-only nature is implied by the verb, not explicitly stated.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main action and scope appear first, followed by data source and a key parameter hint. There is no fluff. The only minor issue is that the 'ramo' hint is placed at the end, but it is still clearly attached to the parameter.

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 four optional string parameters with no schema descriptions, the tool is more complex than a simple search. The description explains only the 'ramo' parameter and leaves 'tipo', 'stato', and 'testo' ambiguous. Although an output schema exists, the agent still lacks sufficient guidance to construct a valid query, especially for status or type filters.

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 only explains the 'ramo' parameter with allowed values 'Camera' or 'Senato'. The parameters 'tipo' and 'stato' are indirectly referenced via 'con tipo, iniziativa, fase dell'iter', and 'testo' may correspond to 'per tema', but no formats, allowed values, or examples are provided. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently populate all four parameters.

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 clearly states the tool searches ATTI/DDL across all branches ('tutti i rami') and lists the searchable dimensions: type, initiative, phase, first signatories, and rapporteurs. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerca_ddl_senato or cerca_atti_camera, which are branch-specific.

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 phrase 'tutti i rami' implicitly signals this is the cross-branch search tool, which contrasts with branch-specific siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of cerca_ddl_senato or cerca_atti_camera, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance. Usage context is present but not fully articulated.

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