Chi Modifica

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output ('Restituisce gli atti modificanti con tipo di intervento ed evidence') and the data source (Normattiva), but it does not mention failure modes, input validation, or exact response behavior beyond the high-level return types.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful example. Every phrase contributes, with no repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential input example and the type of output. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the scope is simple enough that the provided information is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 provides an example ('Codice Penale art 575') that implies the expected format, but it does not formally define the 'norma' parameter, supported formats, or whether article references are flexible. Some compensation exists, but full clarity is missing.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: it identifies WHO modified a norm or article, using authoritative Normattiva relations. The example ('Codice Penale art 575') makes the input format concrete, and the tool is easily distinguishable from the sibling 'cosa_modifica', which likely answers the inverse question.

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 implies usage by giving an example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name related siblings such as 'cosa_modifica'. There are no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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