search_servicenow_docs

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and adds behavioral context: it is read-only, uses the public docs site, returns ranked results with specific fields. No contradictions; the description enhances the annotation information.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, scope, output, and complementary tool. Front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Ideal conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return fields (title, breadcrumb, URL, snippet, ref) and the complementary tool. Annotations cover read-only and open-world aspects, making the description complete for a search tool.

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 100% and descriptions are already good. The description adds value by providing concrete query examples ('GlideRecord addEncodedQuery') and indicating the product field is optional, which enriches understanding beyond bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches ServiceNow product documentation, listing specific content types (API references, guides, etc.) and output fields. It also distinguishes from sibling `fetch_servicenow_doc` by mentioning it as a complementary tool for reading full pages.

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 explains when to use the tool ('ground answers in current docs rather than memory') and notes it is read-only and uses the public site, not the instance. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternative tools among the many siblings.

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