Get Application Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the tool returns (version, install status, etc.) but does not disclose any behavioral nuances like error handling, auth requirements beyond the environment variable, or potential side effects. This adds some context but not deep behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a helpful usage tip without unnecessary filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only detail-fetching tool with good annotations and clear usage, the description is mostly complete. It lists the key return fields and provides the lookup_app flow. However, there is no output schema, so the description could benefit from a bit more detail on the shape or structure of the returned metadata, but it is not essential for selection.

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%, and both parameters (app_id, instance) have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the tool works by sys_id, which is already in the schema. Thus 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 'Get detailed information about a ServiceNow application by its sys_id' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_app by focusing on retrieving full details rather than resolving names.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use lookup_app to find an application's sys_id by name, then use this tool to get full details.' This tells when to use this tool and names the prerequisite alternative.

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