Find tools by intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the search spans unloaded packages, which is a non-obvious scope fact, and that results are intended to be fed into servicenow_enable_package.

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 semicolon-joined sentence with zero filler, front-loading the scope constraint and ending with the actionable next step.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the description supplies the search scope and the follow-up action. A brief note on how matches relate to package names/instances would close the last gap, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 67% and the query parameter already carries an example ('run an ATF suite'). The phrase 'by intent' reinforces that query is a natural-language goal, but limit and instance get no mention and only the schema carries them; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Search'), specific resource ('all tool packages'), and explicit scope ('loaded or not, by intent'). It also names the sibling that consumes the result (servicenow_enable_package), so an agent can distinguish it from servicenow_list_packages and the record CRUD tools without further reading.

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?

Implies when to use it: when you know the intent rather than a package name, and the follow-up is servicenow_enable_package to load a match. It does not explicitly contrast against servicenow_list_packages (enumerate vs. intent search), but the routing to the enable step is clear.

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