Indice Di Forza

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

There are no annotations, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Esclusiva Openpolis' but provides no behavioral details such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or data update semantics. No side effects or limitations are disclosed.

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 concise and structured: first the primary purpose, then a note on data exclusivity, then parameter guidance. Each sentence earns its place; no redundant content is present.

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 only two parameters, the description explains one well but leaves 'limite' undefined and does not clarify default behavior when 'ramo' is omitted. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the missing parameter semantics create a small gap in callability.

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 description adds value by explaining the 'ramo' parameter with allowed values ('camera' o 'senato'), which the schema does not provide via enums. However, it completely omits the 'limite' parameter, leaving its meaning to be inferred from name/default only. Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial compensation brings it to a marginal pass.

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 ('Classifica') and resource ('parlamentari per INDICE DI FORZA'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'cerca_parlamentari' or 'profilo_parlamentare'. It conveys the ranking purpose without ambiguity.

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 mentions the optional 'ramo' parameter values but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative search or profiling tools. No explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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