search_instance_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results come from a curated registry and are enriched with live instance metadata only 'when available' (i.e., graceful degradation), but it says nothing about ranking, permissions, rate limits, or what happens when no instance connection exists.

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 tightly written sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. The only mild redundancy is the adjective 'curated', which does not change how the agent invokes it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partly compensates by indicating what comes back (registry matches enriched with live instance metadata). All parameters are optional and documented, so an agent has enough to call it; only result ordering/emptiness behavior is unstated.

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 every parameter (query, actionName, propertyName, limit) is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or combination semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb ('Searches') and a well-defined resource ('curated HDS component registry'), plus a secondary behavior (enriching matches with live ServiceNow instance metadata). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like recommend_instance_components or evaluate_platform_component_fit, but the 'search/lookup' framing is clear.

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 states a concrete when-to-use condition: 'when an agent needs to discover likely platform components before choosing a dependency or writing custom UI code.' That is a clear context, but no when-not guidance and no alternative tools (e.g., the recommender or fit-evaluator siblings) are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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