Lookup Table

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses the tool is a read-only search, returns specific fields (name, label, parent, extendable, prefix, scope), and has no side effects. This is sufficient for a safe lookup tool.

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?

Description is concise, well-organized with bullet points, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lists return fields. Given the tool's simplicity and provided context (3 params, no annotations), it covers all necessary aspects for correct usage.

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%, and the description adds valuable context: search_term is case-insensitive partial match, limit has defaults and max, instance falls back to env var. This enriches the schema.

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 for ServiceNow tables by name or label, queries sys_db_object, and validates table names. It distinctively focuses on table metadata lookup, differentiating from sibling tools like query_table or list_instance_tables.

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 explicitly lists four use cases: verify table existence, discover internal name, find related tables, check hierarchy. It implies alternatives (e.g., query_table for data) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use.

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