Cerca Atti Camera

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool searches by topic and returns the legislative process status, which is useful. However, it does not mention limits, ordering, filters, or any operational caveats, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a practical usage example. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return structure is covered. The description provides the purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning. Minor gaps like result limitations or error behavior exist but are not critical for such a straightforward search tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by stating 'per tema', clarifying that 'argomento' is a topic/subject. For a single required parameter, this provides the essential meaning needed to invoke the tool correctly, though a concrete example value would have made it stronger.

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 a specific verb ('Cerca') and resource ('atti/proposte di legge alla CAMERA'), plus the search dimension ('per tema') and the returned information ('stato dell'iter'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like cerca_ddl_senato by explicitly scoping to the Camera.

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 example use cases ('quali proposte alla Camera su <tema>' or the state of a Camera bill), which clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls short of full guidance.

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