search_glossario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the input and output behavior succinctly, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and then the result. Every word adds value, with no fluff. It is efficiently structured for agent consumption.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description effectively covers the purpose, input, and output. It mentions the glossary size and categories of terms. It could mention result limits or pagination, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context about searching by 'term or definition fragment' but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 tool's purpose: searching an Italian glossary of legal/technical terms by term or definition fragment. It specifies the domain (D.Lgs 81/08) and scope (200+ terms), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_normativa or search_ateco.

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 indicates what the tool does and what it returns, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. However, the context of 'glossary' differentiates it from other search tools, and the intended use case (searching a specific glossary) is clear.

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