calcola_aggiornamento_prezzi

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, states that variable products are excluded from the calculation, and describes the returned fields. It does not say what happens if both percentuale and delta are supplied, how currency/rounding is handled, or what errors may occur when the category has no simple products.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the purpose before the workflow note and the parameter constraint; every sentence adds information. The awkward line wrapping and parenthetical nesting slightly reduce readability but do not inflate length.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does supply the return semantics (current vs. calculated price). Combined with the read-only guarantee and the review-before-apply workflow, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though edge-case behavior (both or neither parameter, empty categories) remains unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two optional parameters: it explains percentuale as a percentage (examples 10/-15) and delta as a fixed currency amount (example -5), plus the mutual-exclusivity rule. Only categoria is left implicit, which is tolerable but not documented.

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 and resource (calcola_aggiornamento_prezzi) and scopes it precisely to simple products of one category, explicitly excluding variable products. It also describes the output shape (current price + calculated price), which distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling applica_aggiornamento_prezzi.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as read-only and part of a two-step workflow: show results to the user, then call applica_aggiornamento_prezzi. It also states the constraint to specify only one of percentuale or delta. Missing only an explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. for variable products, beyond the parenthetical note).

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