natural_language_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result format, or any side effects), and it does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that conveys the core functionality without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with no waste.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not mention what type of results are returned (e.g., records, snippets, counts) or how they are presented. However, given the simple parameters and annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'query') described in the schema. The tool description reiterates 'using plain English' for the query parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search ServiceNow using plain English' clearly states the tool's function: it performs a search across ServiceNow records using natural language queries. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ai_search' or 'nlq_query', the focus on plain English input is distinctive enough to convey its purpose.

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 provides minimal guidance on usage. It implies that the tool is appropriate when a user has a natural language query, but it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., for structured queries) or mention alternatives among the many sibling search tools (e.g., 'search_cmdb_ci', 'search_knowledge').

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