it_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral info: it works offline, accepts friendly act_type forms, and produces partial URNs that still resolve on Normattiva. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, offline capability, and parameter semantics. Front-loaded with the main verb and object. No redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers offline behavior, friendly input forms, and partial resolution semantics. The tool is simple, and no critical missing context is apparent.

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 already has 100% coverage (object description lists all fields). The description enriches parameter meaning by explaining that 'act_type' accepts friendly aliases like 'd.lgs' and 'dpr', and clarifies the significance of year+number vs. month/day for resolution. This adds semantic value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Build a canonical, resolvable URN:NIR from act coordinates.' This uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('URN:NIR'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like it_get_act (fetch act) or it_list_codes (list codes).

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 clear usage context, noting it is 'Offline (no network)' and explaining when to add month/day for exact dates vs. using only year+number for partial resolution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use it_get_act instead), so it doesn't reach a 5.

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