Cerca Statistiche

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose the output structure ('Restituisce valore, unità, periodo e link alla fonte') and the authoritative source (Eurostat), but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or data latency. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate but not encompassing.

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 well-structured: it states the resource, the return fields, and the usage condition in three short sentences. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It lacks an explicit statement about the parameter's exact format, but the topic list provides sufficient guidance for correct invocation. Minor gaps around error handling or data freshness do not undermine usability.

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 schema coverage for 'argomento' is 0% and the schema only provides the type string. However, the description lists example topics (disoccupazione, occupazione, inflazione...), which implicitly tells an agent what values to pass. This compensates for the lack of schema description, though it does not explicitly state that 'argomento' should be one of these topics.

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 specifies the exact resource ('STATISTICHE UFFICIALI sull'Italia (Eurostat)') and a clear verb ('Cerca'), while listing concrete topics (disoccupazione, inflazione, PIL, etc.) and return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling legal/legislative tools like cerca_legge or cerca_sentenze.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Usa quando la domanda chiede un NUMERO/tasso/percentuale', which tells an agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusion clause for a 5.

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