Cerca Giustizia Amministrativa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns dataset-level aggregates (lists/statistics) rather than individual ruling texts, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential error cases. The provided context helps but remains incomplete.

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: two sentences deliver the tool's purpose, scope, and limitations without any fluff. Every phrase earns its place, and the dataset-level caveat is well positioned.

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 the simple schema (one string parameter) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description provides the essential context about data granularity. However, it omits usage guidance and any relationship to sibling tools, leaving an agent unsure when to choose this over comparable search tools. It is adequate but not fully 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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the sole parameter 'parole_chiave'. The description implicitly suggests topical keywords via examples like 'appalti', 'edilizia', 'ambiente', but it never explicitly states that the parameter accepts keywords or explains expected format, impact, or valid values. This is insufficient.

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), a specific resource (GIUSTIZIA AMMINISTRATIVA including Consiglio di Stato + TAR), and the dataset-level scope. It explicitly mentions the data source (OpenGA portal) and topical categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cerca_sentenze_cassazione or cerca_sentenze_cost.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for administrative justice dataset queries but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over siblings. No when-not-to-use information is given.

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