Get application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (a parsed Pydantic model) and an error condition, but the stated MissingParameterError for a 'required' application_id contradicts the schema, which marks the field optional with a null default and zero required parameters.

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 opening line is front-loaded and short, which is good, but the remainder is Sphinx docstring boilerplate (:type, :rtype, :raises) that restates what the prose already establishes and adds little for an agent selecting the tool.

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 and 0% parameter coverage across three parameters, the description should carry more of the load. It omits what an 'application' means in this ServiceNow context, what the two undeclared parameters do, and how results are shaped, leaving real gaps for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only explains application_id (unique identifier, string). The other two parameters, mode and api_parameters, are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb (Get) and a resource (application), so the basic intent is clear, but "information about an application" is vague about what is actually retrieved and gives no signal to distinguish it from the many sibling get_* tools (get_cmdb, get_table_record, get_account, etc.).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as servicenow_get_table_record or servicenow_get_cmdb for related lookups. The only conditional content is an error case, not usage guidance.

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