lista_documenti_spesa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a non-mutating retrieval operation and lists accepted values, but it does not specify behavior for invalid input, empty results, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. The long list of allowed values is necessary because the schema lacks an enum, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

With only one simple parameter and an output schema available, the description covers purpose, usage, and the complete input domain. It could mention error handling or output shape, but the output schema and the tool's straightforward lookup nature reduce the need for such details.

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 input schema only defines 'tipo_spesa' as a string with no enum. The description compensates fully: it explains the parameter's meaning, provides an example, and lists all 15 accepted values, giving the agent complete information to construct valid input.

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 'restituisce la lista dei documenti necessari per una specifica tipologia di spesa', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calcola_oneri or verifica_spesa_detraibile, which perform different calculations or checks.

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 explicitly notes the tool is useful 'prima di recarsi al CAF o compilare il 730', giving clear context for when to use it. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is obvious relative to the sibling tools.

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