Cosa Modifica

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool reads authoritative relationships from Normattiva and returns interventions grouped by type with norm/article and evidence, which adequately signals a read-only retrieval operation. It does not cover rate limits, matching details, or error behavior, but those are less critical for a query tool.

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 front-loaded: it states the core question, gives a concrete example, and then describes the output shape. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the input, the output structure, and the data source, and an output schema is present to fill in return details. It would be slightly more complete if it clarified accepted input formats beyond the single example and explicitly distinguished the direction of the query from chi_modifica.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the single 'norma' parameter depends entirely on the description. The phrase 'una legge o decreto' and the example 'DL 19/2024' add real meaning beyond the bare string type, but accepted citation variants, normalization rules, and date or article handling remain unspecified.

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 states a concrete resource ('una legge o decreto') and the specific legal operations it resolves (MODIFICA/ABROGA/SOSTITUISCE/INSERISCE), while also describing the returned grouping by type. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling chi_modifica, so it misses the top-level sibling-differentiation credit.

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 example 'DL 19/2024' makes the intended input pattern clear and implies the use case: given a norm, find what it modifies or replaces. However, the description never states when to choose this tool instead of chi_modifica or any other sibling, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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