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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it searches by keyword, number, or caller, which is useful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like result ordering, pagination, or whether it searches only open incidents. With annotations covering the read-only nature, 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could add a brief note about result behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations that cover the read-only safety profile, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it doesn't clarify how the 'caller' search works (e.g., exact match vs. partial) or whether the search covers closed incidents, which could matter for an agent selecting this tool. It's adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with examples. The description adds the 'caller' search dimension, which is not explicitly in the schema, but overall the schema carries the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Search') and resource ('incidents in ServiceNow') and lists the search dimensions (keyword, number, caller). It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like servicenow_get_incident or servicenow_list_my_incidents.

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 for searching incidents by keyword, number, or caller, which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like servicenow_get_incident (for a specific incident) or servicenow_list_my_incidents (for assigned incidents), nor does it mention exclusions.

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