it_cassazione_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context: it retrieves 'full text' and does so 'live', which is not captured by annotations. This is meaningful beyond the structured data, though it doesn't detail failure modes or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action, resource, and key identifier. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 (1 param, rich annotations, output schema present). The description covers the purpose and the 'live' behavior. It does not mention alternatives among the many siblings, but the schema already states the ID comes from search. Slight gap in distinguishing from similar get-decision tools, but overall adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (sic_id is described with an example and its origin). The tool description merely repeats the identifier concept ('by its SentenzeWeb id') without adding new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full text of one Corte di Cassazione decision') with a precise identifier ('SentenzeWeb id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling search tools like it_cassazione_search by stating it retrieves a single decision, not a list.

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 implies usage: you need a SentenzeWeb id, likely from a prior search. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like it_get_text or it_case_get_decision, nor does it mention any exclusions. Only implied through the identifier requirement.

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