verifica_spesa_detraibile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention what the output looks like, whether it is a safe read operation, or any side effects. The user is left without insight into the tool's behavior beyond the high-level action.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence. The 'Args' block is slightly verbose but adds an example. There is no irrelevant information, and it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify valid values for 'tipo_spesa' or clarify what 'con quali regole' entails (e.g., does it return a text explanation, a boolean, or rules?). The output schema exists but does not compensate for this missing contextual information about the input domain and expected behavior.

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 no description for 'tipo_spesa' (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It offers one example ('es. "spese_sanitarie"') but does not enumerate valid values, format requirements, or a list of possible expense types. This is insufficient for correct invocation without additional knowledge.

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: 'Verifica se una spesa è detraibile/deducibile e con quali regole.' This uses a specific verb ('verifica') and resource ('spesa detraibile/deducibile'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calcola_*' that calculate amounts rather than verify deductibility rules.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred (e.g., for checking eligibility vs. calculating amounts), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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