calcola_detrazioni_familiari_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it excludes under-21 children and explains parameter roles. However, it does not describe the return format or edge-case behavior, and it contains a notable discrepancy: the description states 'Default: 2024' while the schema specifies default 2025, which undermines trust.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line summary, a prominent warning, and then a detailed Args section with an example. It is a bit long but every part adds value, and the example helps clarify the expected format for familiari.

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 moderate complexity with nested familiari objects, and the description covers the critical AUU context and parameter formats. However, it lacks details about the calculation logic, invalid input handling, or what the output structure looks like (though an output schema exists). The default year mismatch is also a gap in completeness.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description's Args section is essential. It thoroughly explains reddito_complessivo, familiari (including sub-fields like tipo, mesi_a_carico, percentuale_carico, eta_inferiore_21), and anno. The value is slightly diminished by the default year mismatch and lack of enforcement of the documented sub-field values in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Calcola le detrazioni per carichi di famiglia') and resource scope ('coniuge, figli ≥21, altri'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like calcola_irpef or calcola_detrazione_lavoro. The additional warning about under-21 exclusions further clarifies what it does and does not cover.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for family dependents excluding under-21 children) and an explicit when-not-to-use condition (under-21 children, which are handled by AUU). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool from the sibling list, so it stops short of a full alternative recommendation.

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