consultar_politica

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns literal excerpts with sources and instructs the agent to respond based on them citing the policy. It does not mention read-only behavior or authentication, but for a RAG search tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 very concise: two sentences that cover purpose, usage, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 has only one parameter and the output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what the output contains. It is complete for a simple RAG query tool.

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 one parameter 'pergunta' with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by indicating the parameter should be a question about HR rules and gives examples. While it doesn't detail syntax, it provides enough context for the parameter's purpose.

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 searches for relevant excerpts from internal HR policies using RAG. It lists specific examples like tolerância de atraso and banco de horas, making the purpose concrete. The sibling tools (analytics_rh, aprovar_ajuste, etc.) are distinct, so there is no confusion.

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 explicitly says 'Use para dúvidas sobre regras' and provides a list of example use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to siblings, though the sibling names imply different functions.

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