Cerca Sentenze Ue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (returns pronouncements with CELEX, title, and link) but does not describe pagination, empty-result behavior, or any rate/access limitations. For a search tool, the disclosed return format is useful, but richer behavioral context is missing.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, the return content is stated in the second sentence, and usage guidance with examples lands last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with an output schema available, the description covers the purpose, the scope (CELEX sector 6), the return content, and the usage context with examples. The output schema handles the return shape, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the one parameter 'argomento' through the phrase 'per argomento' and reinforces the meaning with examples ('protezione dei dati', 'concorrenza'), which adds significant semantic value beyond the bare name 'argomento' in the schema.

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 ('Cerca'), names the precise resource (sentences of the European Union - EU Court of Justice / General Court), specifies the source (EUR-Lex CELEX sector 6) and distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on EU case law. It clearly says what the tool does and, by naming the courts and sector, implicitly separates it from tools like cerca_sentenze_cassazione (Italian case law) or cerca_legge (laws).

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Usa per la giurisprudenza UE o come la Corte di Giustizia ha interpretato il diritto dell'Unione' and provides concrete examples ('protezione dei dati', 'concorrenza'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the context is clear enough given the large sibling set.

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