Elenco Stazioni Regione

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only mentions that geographic coordinates are returned (already covered by the output schema). It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or pagination, leaving the safety/behavior profile undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the purpose before the code enumeration, with no wasted clauses. The dense parenthetical of region codes is long but earns its place given the zero-coverage schema.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description adequately conveys purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits usage guidance and any behavioral context, leaving gaps an agent would otherwise need to infer.

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% — codice_regione is a bare integer — but the description compensates by enumerating the actual code values (1=Lombardia, 2=Liguria, 5=Lazio, 8=Emilia Romagna, 13=Toscana, 0=principali) that the schema completely lacks. This is exactly the semantic mapping the parameter needs, though 'ecc.' leaves the set open-ended.

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?

States a specific verb (Restituisce) and resource (elenco di tutte le stazioni ferroviarie) scoped to a region, which cleanly separates it from search/detail siblings like cerca_stazione and dettaglio_stazione. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and never points to an alternative such as cerca_stazione or codice_regione_stazione. The use case is only implied by the purpose statement, with no framing of context or exclusions.

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