Cerca Sentenze Cassazione

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (SentenzeWeb), temporal limitation (ultimi ~6 anni), and the return fields (numero/anno/sezione, tipo, articoli citati, link). This is solid transparency for a search tool, though it does not mention potential absence of results or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, followed by output summary and usage examples. No filler or redundant content; every sentence contributes to effective tool selection and invocation.

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 single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and the clear scope/examples, the description is nearly complete. It covers source, time window, legal domains, and typical use cases. Minor omissions such as explicit exclusions compared to sibling tools prevent a perfect score.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'argomento' parameter. It does so effectively by framing it as a topic or reato and giving four concrete examples (omicidio stradale, licenziamento, truffa, diffamazione), adding meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 Cassation Court judgments (civil and criminal) by topic, via SentenzeWeb, and specifies the time range. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the Court of Cassation and 'giurisprudenza di legittimità', making it easy to differentiate from constitutional or administrative justice 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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Usa per la giurisprudenza di legittimità su un reato o un tema' with concrete examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples and court-specific scope make the intended use unambiguous.

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