Cerca Votazioni

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the data source ('Dati Openpolis') and implies a read-only search operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as response structure, pagination, rate limits, or whether filters combine additively. For a search tool, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, comma-laden sentence that packs in key features without redundancy. It is concise and information-dense. However, the flow is slightly dense with overlapping qualifiers, and no line breaks aid scannability, but this is a minor issue.

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?

With five optional parameters and no annotations, the description lacks essential context such as default behavior when no filters are supplied, how filters interact, and what a typical response contains. An output schema exists but is not shown in the description, so it does not substitute for missing guidance. This makes the tool under-specified for correct invocation in varied contexts.

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 explaining parameters. It only explicitly clarifies 'esito' with examples and mentions 'fiducia' and 'chiavi' generically. The parameters 'testo', 'solo_finali', and 'solo_voti_chiave' are not meaningfully explained, leaving the agent without enough semantic information to populate them correctly.

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 that the tool searches parliamentary votes ('Cerca VOTAZIONI') and lists key filtering aspects (by theme, result, confidence votes, key votes). This distinguishes it from siblings like cerca_legge or cerca_sentenze. However, the phrase 'per tema' is not directly reflected in the schema parameters (only 'testo'), and some mentioned concepts like 'voto segreto' and 'coesione' are not explicit parameters, slightly obscuring exact scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and sibling tools. Without such direction, an agent must infer usage from the tool's self-description.

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