search_normativa

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'fuzzy search' without elaborating on matching behavior, result limits, sorting, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation-free 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 description is a single 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could mention pagination or result format, but for a fuzzy search with minimal inputs, it is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'query' parameter described as 'Search query'. The description adds value by specifying what can be searched (name, scope, article reference), enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 it performs a fuzzy search on Italian workplace-safety regulations, specifying the searchable attributes (name, scope, article reference). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_normativa' (exact retrieval) and 'search_ateco' (different domain).

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 implies usage for approximate matching but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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