servicenow_search_incidents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It only states the action (search) and fields (keyword, number, caller) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format.

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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the lack of detail reduces its value.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain return values, result format, or any processing details. For a search tool, this is incomplete. The empty input schema exacerbates the lack of contextual completeness.

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?

The input schema has zero properties despite the description mentioning search by keyword, number, or caller. This contradiction means the description adds no parameter meaning; in fact, it misleads by implying parameters exist. Schema coverage is 100% but empty, so the description fails to compensate.

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 it searches incidents by keyword, number, or caller, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like servicenow_get_incident (single incident) and servicenow_list_my_incidents (own incidents). However, it could be more specific about the search scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., servicenow_get_incident for specific incident, servicenow_list_my_incidents for personal incidents). The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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