guida_quadro

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the 'quadro' parameter is case-insensitive and lists valid values, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or what the output format is (though an output schema exists). The description implies a safe informational tool but does not explicitly guarantee no side effects.

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 and appropriately sized. It opens with a clear purpose sentence, then details what the guide explains in a bullet point, followed by parameter documentation and a list of available quadri. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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 is simple: one parameter and presumably a textual guide output. The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter meaning, valid inputs, and content scope. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use this tool correctly.

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 only a parameter name and type with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'quadro' is the letter of the section, providing examples, noting case-insensitivity, and listing all valid values (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, K, L, M, T, W). This gives the agent complete information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 function: 'Fornisce una guida dettagliata per la compilazione di un quadro del Modello 730' (provides a detailed guide for filling out a section of Form 730). It uses a specific verb ('fornisce') and resource ('quadro del Modello 730'), and the purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform calculations or validations.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need explanatory guidance on what to declare, main fields, notes, and documents for a specific section. It lists the available sections (quadri), which helps the agent select the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to sibling tools for calculations.

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