Get featured knowledge article

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 only that it returns 'parsed Pydantic models' and raises ParameterError on bad input – generic and with no pagination or rate-limit context. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Sphinx-style parameter block is structured, but the block includes parameters absent from the schema, which is wasted and inaccurate content rather than earned concision.

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 12-parameter, zero-coverage tool with no output schema and no usage guidance, the description is far too thin. It neither documents the majority of parameters nor explains how results are paged or how to select among the sibling article-retrieval tools.

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 12 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it documents only 5 fields. Worse, two documented fields (kb, language) do not exist in the input schema, while nine real parameters (textSearch, sysparm_query, article_sys_id, api_parameters, name_value_pairs, attachment_sys_id, sysparm_search_id, sysparm_search_rank, sysparm_update_view) are undocumented. The partial and misaligned coverage makes it misleading rather than merely incomplete.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get featured Knowledge Base articles.' It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like servicenow_get_knowledge_articles or servicenow_get_most_viewed_knowledge_articles, and 'featured' is left undefined. The plural 'articles' also conflicts slightly with the singular tool name.

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. Given three sibling knowledge-article retrieval tools, an agent gets no signal for choosing this one over them.

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