Titoli Infomobilita

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only synthetic titles (not full text) are returned and that it is a compact view, which tells the agent what to expect. However it says nothing about the boolean mode switch, freshness/caching, or any read-vs-write behavior beyond the implicit read nature of 'Restituisce'.

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 with no filler; the core scope comes first and the compact-mode qualifier follows. Efficient, though it is short enough that the omissions cost it rather than any verbosity.

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 (one optional param) and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. That said, with no annotations and an undescribed parameter, the description is only minimally sufficient – it should at least explain what 'solo_lavori' toggles and how this differs from notizie_infomobilita/ticker_infomobilita.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'solo_lavori' is never mentioned in the description. The mention of 'lavori programmati' only indirectly alludes to that filter and is presented as part of the default result set, not as a toggle, so the agent gets almost no help understanding the parameter's effect.

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 ('titoli sintetici degli avvisi di infomobilità o dei lavori programmati'), and the parenthetical '(versione compatta per panoramica rapida)' positions it against fuller-output siblings like notizie_infomobilita. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the verb+resource+scope is clear.

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?

'Versione compatta per panoramica rapida' implies the use case (fast overview rather than full detail), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is named. Usage must be inferred from the compactness hint rather than stated.

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