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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the sys_id output is meant for send_flow_to_servicenow, and a disconnected app surfaces an error pointing to Wavelength settings. Return shape and result-count behavior are still unstated.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding; every sentence adds workflow or precondition value. The 'Use a sys_id with send_flow_to_servicenow' clause is slightly abrupt and could be clearer about what is returned.

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 two-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose, offline handling, and downstream sys_id usage. With no output schema, the actual result shape (list of matches, returned fields) is only obliquely implied.

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, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's 'by number or description' mirrors the query param and the record-type enumeration mirrors the table enum, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 (search/find) and resource (ServiceNow records) and enumerates the record types it covers. It clearly separates itself from find_salesforce_records, find_jira_targets, find_notion_pages, and find_confluence_targets by naming the platform.

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?

Provides clear context: this finds ServiceNow records by number/description, and the resulting sys_id feeds send_flow_to_servicenow, which routes the agent through the correct workflow. It also flags the not-connected precondition. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over the sibling find_* tools or any exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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