Check achievable capabilities

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reports achievable capabilities and warns that reads may be silently empty in restricted environments. It does not describe exact output structure, but the warning adds meaningful transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and adds a concrete usage warning. Every sentence contributes useful information without fluff or repetition.

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 simple read-only preflight tool with one optional parameter, annotations, and a clear description, the definition is complete. It states what it checks, when to use it, and the key risk it mitigates, so an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, 'instance', is fully described in the schema as the connection profile with a default and a pointer to servicenow_list_instances. With 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to add parameter details, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb ('Preflight') and names the concrete resource (admin-restricted sys_* tables) plus the higher-level capabilities being checked. This clearly distinguishes the tool from record/query/attachment siblings, which perform different operations.

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 says to run this before relying on scripts/flows/codecheck tools on a governed instance, and warns about silently empty reads on least-privilege accounts. This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly list when NOT to use the tool.

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