sn_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: order submission is gated on confirm=true. It does not say what turns non-idempotent, whether orders are reversible, or what auth is needed.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource then lists modes telegraphically. Nothing is wasted, but the compression crosses into ambiguity in places (e.g. 'action=variables (an item's form fields)' does not read cleanly).

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 an 8-parameter, mutation-capable, multi-mode catalog tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is thin: it leaves the mapping from parameters to actions unexplained and gives no guidance on paging (limit) or text search. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe returns, but the invocation gaps remain large.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the whole burden. It only explains 'action' and 'confirm'; item, text, limit, category, quantity, and variables are never mentioned, including which action consumes item vs category vs variables.

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?

Identifies the resource (Service Catalog) and enumerates the four modes with a short gloss for each (browse, an item's form fields, submit an order). An agent can tell what each action does, though it cannot tell this tool apart from siblings like sn_read or sn_write, which also touch ServiceNow records.

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 action enumeration implicitly routes mode selection, and 'action=order ... needs confirm=true' is an explicit precondition for the risky mode. But there is no statement of when to use this versus sn_read/sn_write/sn_aggregate, and no exclusion guidance anywhere.

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