warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that the tool retrieves warnings, with no disclosure about side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The behavior is implied to be read-only but not explicitly confirmed.

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 description is extremely concise at two sentences (15 words) while still conveying the core purpose and filter capabilities. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff.

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 simple retrieval tool with three optional parameters and an output schema (presumably listing warnings), the description covers the basic goal. However, it lacks details about the output format, error handling, or any limitations, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the Nexi system.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by linking 'codiceTransazione' to 'transaction code' and the two date params to 'date range'. This compensates partially, but the exact format or constraints are not given, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('warnings/anomalies from Nexi XPay Back Office'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list_orders, order_details, payment_methods) by focusing on a different entity (warnings).

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 description mentions filtering options ('by transaction code or date range'), giving some context on when to use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use advice or compare with alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource name alone.

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