Natural Language Query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the natural language querying behavior but does not disclose further traits like result limits or interpretation caveats. Since annotations cover the critical safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence with two clear examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes no filler. 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 simple, read-only query tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the natural language querying method and provides examples. It does not describe the return format, but that is not critical given the low complexity and absence of an output schema.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (limit, query, project), so the description need not add much. The examples in the description illustrate query usage but do not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is justified.

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's function: 'Query state graph using natural language free-text' with concrete examples. It identifies the specific resource (state graph) and the distinct method (natural language), differentiating it from sibling tools like query_graph or search_nodes.

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 context: use when you have a natural language question rather than a structured query. It provides examples but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Still, the clear 'natural language free-text' signal gives solid guidance.

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