it_ga_search

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

The description discloses that the search is 'live' and 'real time', indicating results may change and the data comes from the public portal. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) by specifying the dynamic nature and scale (3.4M+ provvedimenti). No contradiction with annotations.

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: it opens with the purpose and scope in the first sentence, follows with useful backend context, and ends with a terse input hint. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool does, the data source, and the input pattern. For a search tool with an output schema, this is a complete picture; the only minor gap is unlike sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough.

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?

While the schema already provides thorough descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds a meaningful usage constraint: 'Provide a full-text query, a decision numero, or both.' This is not explicitly stated in the schema and helps the agent know a minimum input is expected.

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 searches Italian administrative case law, listing the specific courts (Consiglio di Stato, C.G.A.R.S., TAR). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource, and distinguishes itself by its exclusive focus on the administrative jurisdiction.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: it's the live search over the Giustizia Amministrativa portal. It also instructs the agent to provide a query, decision number, or both, which helps in choosing inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like it_ga_get_decision for known citations.

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