Dizionario Lingua

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Restituisce' implies a read-only retrieval with no mutation, and the supported-language list adds useful context, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or explicitly confirm the operation is side-effect free.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the supported-language list follows immediately as practical detail.

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, has one optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description supplies the supported language values and the retrieval purpose, though it omits the default language behavior and any invalid-language handling.

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. It lists the exact supported language codes ('it', 'en', 'de', 'fr', 'sp', 'ro', 'jp', 'zh', 'ru'), effectively supplying the enum values missing from the schema. It does not name the parameter or mention the default 'it', keeping it from a perfect score.

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: it returns the ViaggiaTreno interface string translation dictionary. This is a clear, unique purpose that cannot be confused with any sibling tool such as station lookup or train status tools.

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 by naming the returned resource and listing supported languages, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple unique lookup tool, the implied usage is adequate, though no explicit guidance is given.

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