Get import set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact: a ParameterError is raised if import_set_sys_id or table is missing. It says nothing about return contents or latency, so it is a modest add-on rather than rich context.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, but the trailing Sphinx boilerplate (:param:/:type:/:return:/:raises:) adds verbosity, and the :type: lines merely restate str types already visible in the schema. The :return: line does earn its place by describing the response.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers two of three parameters plus the return type and the error case, which is reasonable. The unexplained 'data' parameter and the absence of any pagination or response-shape detail keep it from being complete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It documents table and import_set_sys_id with semantic intent and types, but leaves the third parameter 'data' entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Get details of a specific import set record.' An agent can tell this is a read of one import set. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as servicenow_insert_import_set or servicenow_get_table_record.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as servicenow_insert_import_set or servicenow_get_table_record. The only conditional content is the :raises: clause, which is error behavior rather than usage guidance.

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