Cerca Ddl Senato

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search function and status field, but omits any behavior like data sources, freshness, limits, or how results are ordered. This is minimal coverage.

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: the first states the core function and status, the second gives usage patterns. No redundant words; front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 the description need not detail return structure. It provides function, scope (Senate), status values, and usage examples. It lacks caveats like 'only current legislature' or accuracy disclaimers, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably 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?

The input schema has only 'argomento' with no description, but the textual description clarifies that 'argomento' is the topic ('per tema') and supplies concrete examples (nucleare, sicurezza, fisco). This adds meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool searches for pending legislation (DDL) in the Senate ('al SENATO') by topic and includes status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerca_atti_camera (Chamber) or cerca_legge (generic laws).

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 gives explicit example queries ('quali DDL su <tema>' or 'a che punto è il DDL su <tema>') and sample topics. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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