Search Knowledge Base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explaining what the query parameter encodes (e.g., 'workflow_state=published') and describing return fields (title, category, author, state, view count). This goes beyond the schema and offers meaningful behavioral insight.

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 an opening summary, an Args section, Returns, and Examples. It is efficient and front-loaded. Some redundancy exists (the Args section closely mirrors the schema), but the examples and return description justify the length. Every section earns its place for a 6-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values adequately. It covers all six parameters, provides examples for search scenarios, and clarifies pagination and response_format. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention fallback behavior when search_text is empty or how knowledge_base sys_ids are obtained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter meanings with examples (e.g., search_text='VPN', query='category.labelLIKEsecurity') but does not add substantial semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents. It mainly restates the parameter purposes in a more human-readable form.

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 searches the ServiceNow knowledge base for articles by keyword, category, or filter. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like servicenow_get_kb_article (which retrieves a single article) and servicenow_search_ci (which searches configuration items).

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 provides concrete examples of when to use the tool, such as searching for 'VPN' articles, filtering by 'workflow_state=published', or by category via 'category.labelLIKEsecurity'. While it gives clear usage context, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_kb_article for known sys_ids.

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