pim_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 covered by structured data. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that: the return payload contains both a summary and details, which is useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about the open-world nature of the answers, latency, or how the 'limit' affects returned detail.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is delivered immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the usage and parameter detail the definition otherwise lacks.

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?

This is an open-world natural-language query tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, and it sits among several near-identically named siblings. The description covers only the bare intent plus a hint at the return shape, leaving routing between the natural-language query family and the meaning of 'limit' unresolved.

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% and neither parameter is described in the schema. The description only implies that 'question' is free-form natural language; it never explains what 'limit' bounds (rows, entities, detail items) or what the default of 20 means in practice. For a zero-coverage schema, the description does not compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it interprets PIM questions in natural language and returns a response with summary and details. The 'PIM' domain qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling natural-language-query tools (iam_natural_language_query, timeline_natural_language_query, agent_natural_language_query), though the differentiation is never made explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the four sibling natural-language-query tools, nor any stated prerequisites, scope limits, or examples of acceptable questions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the 'PIM' qualifier.

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