list_application_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and completeness profile is covered. The description adds the table name and the parity reference, which is some context, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or error semantics. With annotations present, this is a reasonable score; it adds marginal value beyond the structured data.

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, zero filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the parity note is a useful extra context placed at the end. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 straightforward list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential what and how. It mentions the table and optional filters, and the annotations cover read-only and open-world semantics. It could mention the default limit (which is in the schema) or return shape, but the absence is not a critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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% — each parameter (limit, query, operational_status) already has a description. The tool description only reiterates the optional nature of name and operational status without adding new meaning or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action (list), the resource (discovered application services), and even identifies the underlying table (cmdb_ci_service_auto). It also specifies that filtering is optional by name or operational status, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from any sibling that might list other entity types.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when listing application services) and that filters are optional, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The parity note with ServiceNow provides some context but no exclusions. Adequate but not explicit about competing tools.

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