Cerca Legge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the source scope, the output type (explanation), and the citation format with examples. It could mention limitations such as non-mutating behavior or coverage boundaries, but for a search tool it is reasonably transparent.

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 three purposeful sentences: action and scope, return format, and usage cases. It is concise, well-structured, and free of filler.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool searches, what to pass in, what it returns, and typical use cases. An example query would improve it further, but it is complete enough for agent selection and basic invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the single parameter 'domanda' is a legal question and gives topic categories, but it does not provide a concrete example query or phrasing guidance. The meaning is adequate but not deeply specified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it searches Italian law (Constitution + Penal Code) for an answer to a legal question. The explicit source scope distinguishes it from siblings such as cerca_legge_ue, cerca_sentenze_cost, and case-law tools.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'cosa prevede/dice la legge, reati, pene, diritti, doveri, principi costituzionali', so an agent knows when to select it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of the highest rating.

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