Cerca Pnrr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (importo finanziato, fase dell'iter) and the data source (OpenPNRR, ODbL 1.0), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or any search behavior nuances, though a read-only search is implied by the tool type.

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: the first sentence defines the tool's function and expected output, the second gives usage patterns and data provenance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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 simple single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it searches, what it returns, when to use it, and where the data comes from. It does not address error cases or pagination, but that is not essential for a basic query 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 description coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'tema' has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that tema can be a subject or a place, with examples. This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to populate the parameter correctly, even without explicit schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Progetti del PNRR') with clear scoping by tema or luogo, and includes concrete examples ('asilo nido', 'ospedale Bari', 'banda larga'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which all concern legal or parliamentary topics, not PNRR projects.

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?

Provides explicit usage patterns ('Usa per 'progetti PNRR su <tema>', 'fondi PNRR a <luogo>'') that tell the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the domain separation from siblings makes the context clear.

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