Organi Parlamentari

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by enumerating the types of organs and noting the data source (Openpolis), but it does not mention side effects, limitations, or behavior on invalid inputs. It is not misleading, but it lacks depth.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the tipo values and data source. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should fully explain how to call the tool. It documents tipo but not ramo, and gives no indication of pagination or error handling. For a relatively simple listing tool, it is adequate but incomplete.

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. It explicitly provides the allowed values for 'tipo' (groups|presidency|commission_councils), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'ramo' parameter, leaving a gap for one of two parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Elenca' and names the resource 'ORGANI PARLAMENTARI' with clear subtypes (gruppi, presidenza, commissioni). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on parliamentary bodies and specifying the tipo values, making it unambiguous.

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 listing what the tool lists, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like cerca_parlamentari or other research tools. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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