Discover Tables

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return payload ('table names, labels, parent classes, and scopes') and pagination grouping, which provides useful transparency beyond the annotation flags.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, an Args list, Returns line, and examples. It is appropriately concise, with each section serving a purpose, though the Args duplication could be trimmed slightly to avoid redundancy with the schema.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description supplies essential return-field information and examples that cover common use cases. It also provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately with pagination and filter parameters.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the input schema with full coverage, and the description's 'Args' section largely duplicates schema field descriptions. The examples do illustrate typical values ('search='incident'', 'scope=x_'), but they don't add semantic information beyond the 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 'Search and list ServiceNow tables by name, label, or scope', specifying the verb, resource, and filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_records or get_table_schema by focusing on table discovery.

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 notes the tool is 'Useful for exploring the data model' and provides concrete examples (incident tables, custom tables, CMDB tables), which gives an agent clear context on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases are illustrative enough for typical discovery scenarios.

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