Lookup Application or Plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by explaining the underlying table hierarchy (sys_scope, sys_app, sys_store_app, sys_plugins) and listing the returned fields (sys_id, name, scope, version, active status, type). This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral expectations, though it omits details like potential result size limits or error scenarios.

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 moderately sized but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose and return fields, then provides a hierarchy breakdown, followed by key use cases. Every section adds value and the text is not redundant. It could be slightly tighter, but the length is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and providing use-case context. It covers the main scenarios (retrieving sys_id, checking active status, looking up version/scope). However, it does not mention how results are ordered or paginated, and the absence of an output schema means some additional return-structure details could be helpful.

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 each parameter (type, instance, active_only, search_term) is already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only clarifies the table structure indirectly related to the 'type' parameter.

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's function: 'Search for ServiceNow applications (scoped apps) and platform plugins by name, scope namespace, or plugin ID.' It specifies the resource (apps and plugins) and the action (search), and differentiates itself from siblings like get_app_details, list_plugins, and search_store_apps by emphasizing cross-table search across sys_scope and sys_plugins.

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 use cases, such as finding an app's sys_id for execute_script and checking installation/active status. It establishes context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. The hierarchy explanation helps users understand what each type filter covers.

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