Explain ServiceNow access policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — 'Local; no instance call' tells the agent no credentials or network are needed and that results are advisory, not enforced. It does not say what happens when the policy is ambiguous or whether it reflects cached vs. live state.

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 dense sentence with zero filler; the primary mode is stated first, the fallback mode second, and the locality constraint last. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining both return shapes (verdict plus deciding rule, or effective policy) and the no-network guarantee, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor gap: it does not clarify what 'active policy' or 'profile' resolves to when multiple instances exist.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: omitting 'table' changes the tool's entire output mode to returning the effective policy. That conditional behavior is the key semantic an agent needs and it is only stated here.

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 names a precise verb and outcome — decide whether a table may be read or written and name the deciding rule — and covers the fallback mode (no table returns effective policy). This clearly separates it from the CRUD and query siblings, which act on data rather than explain policy.

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 two modes (with table vs. without) imply when each path applies, and 'Local; no instance call' signals this is a pre-flight check rather than a data operation. However, it never states that it should be used before create_record/update_record or how it relates to servicenow_check_capabilities, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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