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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the identification scope ('by number or sys_id' and 'full details'), which is useful but largely redundant with the schema. No behavioral details such as authentication or rate limits are mentioned, but with annotations covering safety, this is an acceptable baseline.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the core function, then the identifier type.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. The agent knows what the tool does, when to use it, and the input format. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with the id parameter fully documented as 'Incident number (e.g. 'INC0012345') or sys_id'. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('full details of a specific ServiceNow incident'), and an identifier method ('by number or sys_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like servicenow_search_incidents and servicenow_list_my_incidents, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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 implies the tool should be used when the caller already has an incident number or sys_id and needs full details. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the identification mechanism provides clear context. The specificity of the ID input makes the use case unambiguous.

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