search_kb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only published articles are returned and that results are subject to the kb_knowledge field allowlist, providing valuable behavioral context. It could mention more (e.g., result format) but is quite transparent for a search tool.

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 concise and well-structured: front-loaded purpose, followed by usage guidance and constraints. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 simple search tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, and key constraints (published-only, allowlist). With no output schema, a brief note about return fields would improve completeness, so 4.

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%: both 'query' and 'limit' are thoroughly documented with examples and constraints. The description adds no new parameter-level insights, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('ServiceNow knowledge base'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_table by focusing on published articles and text queries.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the user is asking how to do something, troubleshooting, or looking for documented procedures.' However, it lacks when-not scenarios or named alternatives, so it doesn't fully hit the 5 criteria.

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