Dettaglio Stazione

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one non-obvious trait: that codice_regione is auto-retrieved when omitted, which is not stated in the schema. It does not cover failure behavior for an invalid codice_stazione, permissions, or any error/edge conditions.

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?

Two tight sentences with the returned fields front-loaded and the fallback behavior appended; no filler. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be re-described, and the description is adequate for a two-parameter lookup. However, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the required parameter remains unexplained, leaving an agent without guidance on the format of codice_stazione.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains codice_regione's optional nature and auto-fallback, but says nothing about the required codice_stazione (its format or valid values) or what codice_regione actually affects in the result set.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Restituisce i dettagli completi di una stazione ferroviaria') and enumerates the fields returned (coordinates, city, region, typology), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly contrast itself with lookalike siblings such as cerca_stazione or autocompleta_stazione, so differentiation is only implied.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer this over cerca_stazione, autocompleta_stazione, or elenco_stazioni_regione. The only conditional statement concerns the codice_regione fallback, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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