Validate Catalog Configuration

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable transparency by detailing the validation checks performed and the return payload structure (valid/invalid flag, counts, issues with severity, component, sys_id, description, suggested fix). This exceeds what annotations reveal, though it stops short of describing edge-case behavior like missing sys_id handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific checks and return details. Two short paragraphs without redundancy or filler—every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it validates, and what it returns. Since there is no output schema, the return structure is described in useful detail. Missing behavior on nonexistent items or permission requirements is not disclosed, but the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only validation tool.

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 covers both parameters fully with descriptions (instance auth alias, catalog_item_sys_id). The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond restating that it validates a catalog item, so 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 validates a catalog item's configuration on ServiceNow, enumerating specific checks (duplicate variables, missing names, inactive mandatory variables, UI policy issues). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like validate_app_install or get_catalog_item.

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?

Usage is implied by stating what the tool does and what it checks, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when not to use this tool or why pick it over validate_app_install for configuration validation.

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