controlla_somiglianza

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the underlying algorithm (shared runs of at least 5 words), the calibration of scores 0-9, the non-binding nature of the verdict and the user's final say, and it names an output field (passaggi_simili) plus the caveat that product names inflate the score. What it leaves implicit is prerequisites (what happens if no site has been analyzed yet) and error behavior, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scale, then a computation block, then the usage protocol — a sensible ordering. It runs long and repeats the user-retains-control point ('non e' vincolante', 'l'ultima parola e' dell'utente'), which could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the interpretation guide for the score and names the fields returned (`accettabile`, `passaggi_simili`), which is what an agent needs to report results correctly. Missing only edge-case handling, e.g. what occurs when no site has been analyzed or when testo is empty.

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 for all four parameters and it largely does: testo implied as the text under review, sito ('vuoto = tutti quelli analizzati', with the casualbay.it example), soglia (0-9, activates the `accettabile` field), and riferimenti (extra manual comparison texts). The only gap is that the null/default semantics of soglia (no verdict emitted) are inferred rather than stated.

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 action (measuring textual similarity) against a named source (texts from a site analyzed with analizza_seo_sito, or manually supplied texts) with the output scale spelled out. Sibling tools are clearly differentiated: analizza_seo_sito analyzes a site, this one judges whether OUR text borrows from it.

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?

Explicit trigger ('Usalo su ogni testo scritto prendendo spunto da un concorrente ... PRIMA di applicarlo') plus a prescribed workflow: show score, explain the scale, ask the user for the soglia, never choose it autonomously, do not apply anything until decided, and offer a rewrite and re-check if exceeded. No alternatives need to be considered because the conditions are stated outright.

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