agent_natural_language_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what the natural-language interpretation does, whether it hits an LLM, how free-form the question may be, or how results are shaped.

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 short sentence with the domain front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and no explanation of how free-form questions are handled or returned, the definition leaves an agent guessing about inputs and results. For a tool whose whole contract is natural-language interpretation, this is too thin.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The word "perguntas" loosely maps to the required `question` parameter, but the description never explains the question format, and the `limit` parameter (default 20) is entirely unexplained in either schema or description.

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?

States a specific verb ("Interpreta") and a scoped resource ("perguntas sobre Agent Identities"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling NL-query tools iam_natural_language_query, pim_natural_language_query, and timeline_natural_language_query. It never names those alternatives explicitly, but the Agent Identities domain is a real differentiator.

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 domain scoping ("about Agent Identities") implies when this tool is the right choice versus the other natural-language query tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred.

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