Cerca Sentenze Cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what is searched (official massime), the time span covered (1956→oggi), and what is returned (numero/anno, massima sintetica, link). This goes beyond the schema, although it does not mention potential limitations like result limits or ordering, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences long, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second sentence describes the output and gives direct usage guidance. There is no redundant or filler content, and the key differentiator ('CORTE COSTITUZIONALE') is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter search tool, this description is complete: it specifies the corpus, the temporal coverage, the output fields, and the kinds of queries that are appropriate. An output schema exists, so the description need not detail the exact response structure. The sibling context further clarifies that this tool is specifically for Italian constitutional court decisions.

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 only provides 'argomento' as an unadorned string with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that the parameter is a legal topic, right, or article, and provides three concrete examples ('libertà di stampa', 'fine vita', 'ergastolo ostativo'), which clearly disambiguates the expected value format.

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 identifies the verb 'Cerca' and the precise resource 'SENTENZE della CORTE COSTITUZIONALE', further narrowing the scope with 'per argomento' and 'nelle massime ufficiali'. It also states the date range and even gives examples of appropriate queries, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools focused on other courts or legal sources.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Usa per la giurisprudenza costituzionale su un tema/diritto/articolo', with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, but the reference to 'costituzionale' and the sibling tool names like cerca_sentenze_cassazione and cerca_sentenze_ue make the intended use clear.

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