Decreti Legge

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 result contents (conversion status, conversion act, Normattiva link) and a cross-tool integration (concatenating normattiva_urn with cosa_modifica). However, it does not specify how the parameters behave (e.g., whether empty parameters retrieve all decrees, how 'stato' filters, or any restrictions such as date/coverage limits), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 entire description is two short sentences that waste no words. It front-loads the main action and packs result details and an integration hint without verbosity.

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 two-optional-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core query and result fields, and even connects to a sibling tool via the normattiva_urn field. It lacks examples and a precise list of possible 'stato' values, but the presence of an output schema and default-empty parameters makes the remaining gaps minor.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'stato' refers to the 'stato di CONVERSIONE in legge' and that search is 'per tema,' which maps loosely to the 'testo' parameter. Yet it never names the parameters explicitly and doesn't describe allowed values, formatting, or the relationship between the two filters.

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 opens with 'Cerca DECRETI LEGGE', a specific verb and resource, and specifies the search scope ('per tema') as well as additional result details. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings like cerca_legge or cerca_ddl_senato by targeting a distinct legal act type.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling search tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent toward or away from this tool; selection must rely only on the tool's name and resource type.

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