Lookup Table Columns

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating it queries sys_dictionary and enumerates the return fields (element name, label, type, etc.), giving the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a purpose-driven bullet list, and a return-value summary. No redundant or filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (fields list). It also covers typical use cases and points to sys_dictionary, making the tool understandable in context. With thorough parameter descriptions in the schema, the overall description is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's bullets imply parameter usage (e.g., search_term for finding elements) but don't add meaning beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter. Thus no bonus beyond baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('List or search columns (fields) on a ServiceNow table') and clarifies the underlying mechanism (queries sys_dictionary). It also lists concrete use cases (validate column, find internal element name) that distinguish it from generic query tools like query_table or lookup_table.

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 'Use this tool to' section provides clear context for when to invoke this tool (e.g., listing columns, validating names, checking types). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5 criteria.

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