leggi_seo_prodotto

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload contents (SEO title, meta description, focus keyword, plus title/description/price), which is meaningful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid product_id, whether it is strictly read-only, or any auth/rate constraints, so key traits remain 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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the returned SEO fields and then the extra context fields. No filler; the parenthetical lists are dense but each item earns its place by documenting the return shape in the absence of an output 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is close to sufficient: it enumerates the return fields and states the motivating use case. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior and cross-referencing the sibling tools, which for this level of complexity is a minor omission.

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% — prodotto_id has no description in the schema — and the description never explains the identifier, its format, or where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory and the description's 'di un prodotto' framing confirms it takes a single product, but no added semantics beyond that.

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 pairs a specific verb ('leggi' / stato) with a specific resource ('SEO di un prodotto') and even enumerates the fields returned (SEO title, meta description, focus keyword), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It implicitly scopes to a single product, distinguishing it from the plural sibling leggi_seo_prodotti_selezionati, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'come contesto per scrivere i nuovi testi' hints at the intended workflow (read current SEO before writing an update, presumably via aggiorna_seo_prodotto), but the guidance is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of choosing between this and leggi_seo_prodotti_selezionati or lista_stato_seo_prodotti.

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