search_servicenow_docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful context: 'Read-only; uses the public docs site, not your instance' and describes the result payload (title, breadcrumb, URL, snippet, ref). It doesn't discuss failure modes or rate limits, but the key behavioral boundary (external docs vs instance) is clearly disclosed.

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 sentences, each earning its place: action+scope, return format+companion tool, usage guidance+safety. No redundancy; information is front-loaded and well organized.

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 full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient: it specifies content domain, result fields, how to fetch full pages, and the external/public nature. It could theoretically discuss pagination or no-result handling, but the complexity is low and the description covers the key operational aspects.

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 each parameter (query, limit, product) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, though it does provide useful examples of query strings in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search the official ServiceNow product documentation'), lists content types (API refs, guides, encoded-query operators, release notes), and explicitly names fetch_servicenow_doc as the companion tool. This clearly distinguishes it from other search tools like search_knowledge or search_tools.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use this to ground answers in current ServiceNow docs rather than memory.' It also notes it's public docs, not your instance, which clarifies it's not for instance-specific lookups. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or state when not to use it beyond that.

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