Query ServiceNow table

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate that this is a safe read operation, which the description's 'Read records' wording confirms. The description adds some value by mentioning Table API support, encoded queries, field selection, and pagination, but it does not disclose behavior like response shape, server-side caps, or what happens with fetchAll. This is adequate given the annotations but not richly transparent.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Read records from any ServiceNow table') and then summarizing the key capabilities without redundancy. No words are wasted, and every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level overview but leaves several contextual details to the schema, such as defaults, limits, and formatting options. It does not describe the return structure or differentiate from close siblings. It is sufficient but not complete enough to guide an agent without consulting the schema heavily.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters in detail with examples, defaults, and enums. The description's reference to 'encoded queries, field selection and pagination' maps to query, fields, and limit/offset/fetchAll, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A 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 action ('Read records') and the resource ('any ServiceNow table through the Table API'), which identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like servicenow_get_record or servicenow_aggregate, but the combination of plural records, encoded queries, and pagination makes its query-oriented role reasonably clear.

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 when to use the tool through 'Supports encoded queries, field selection and pagination' and the phrase 'any ServiceNow table.' However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as servicenow_get_record for single-record lookups or servicenow_aggregate for aggregate queries. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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