valida_codice_fiscale_tool

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

The description discloses concrete behaviors: validation of format, length, and the 16th check character, plus extraction of sex, birth date, and birth code. It also notes input normalization (case-insensitive, spaces ignored). Missing is behavior for invalid inputs, but the core traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by concise bullet-like lists of verifications and extracted outputs. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy.

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 description covers the verification steps, extracted fields, and input handling, which is sufficient for a moderately simple tool. The presence of an output schema makes the return representation less critical. Only invalid-input behavior and potential error conditions are missing.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully documents the only parameter `codice_fiscale` and adds meaningful semantics: case-insensitive, spaces ignored. This is exactly the kind of compensation needed for a sparse 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Valida un codice fiscale italiano e ne estrae i dati anagrafici codificati.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tax-calculation tools by focusing on validation and data extraction rather than computation.

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 intended use is implicit but clear: use when a codice fiscale needs validation or when demographic data must be extracted from it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no ambiguity arises.

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