controllo_salute_catalogo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it partially does so: it discloses the scope limit (only published products), the notable business rule that variable products are excluded because they have no own price, and the filtering behavior that clean products are omitted from results. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor whether there are result-size limits or pagination — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

The core scope ('Prodotti pubblicati ma incompleti') is front-loaded and every clause adds a real criterion rather than filler. It is one dense run-on sentence with parenthetical asides, which is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted criteria list would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description gives the agent everything needed to interpret the result set, including the important caveat that non-problematic products are absent. The only shortfall is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the many sibling product-listing tools.

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's title ('Soglia Descrizione') is opaque on its own; the description compensates by explaining that it is a character-count threshold below which a description is considered too short. The default value of 50 is in the schema but the description never mentions units or reasonable ranges beyond 'caratteri'.

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 names a specific analytical task: identifying published products that are incomplete, and enumerates the exact defect criteria (missing featured image, missing category, missing/zero/invalid price, short description). It is clearly distinct from siblings such as lista_prodotti or prodotti_in_bozza, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the defect list — an agent can infer this is a pre-publish audit tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no mention of how it relates to lista_prodotti or prodotti_in_bozza, which could plausibly overlap.

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