pim_natural_language_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the tool interprets the input and returns a summary plus details, which is useful context, but it does not discuss limitations, result bounds, or interpretation behavior beyond that.

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 compact sentence conveys the operation, input type, and output shape without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 one-required-parameter NL query tool with read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what to pass and roughly what to expect. But with no output schema, the summary/detail description is vague, and the omission of 'limit' plus lack of guidance versus sibling NL tools creates a noticeable completeness gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'question' parameter as a natural-language PIM question; the 'limit' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving its effect on the returned response unknown.

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 uses a specific verb ('Interpreta'), identifies the resource domain ('PIM'), and states the output ('resposta com resumo e detalhes'). It is clear when read alone, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling NL tools such as iam_natural_language_query, timeline_natural_language_query, or agent_natural_language_query.

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?

Usage is implied: use when the user has a natural-language question about PIM. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools, which leaves routing among the sibling NL query tools to inference.

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