Get incident

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return type and two documented error paths (MissingParameterError, ParameterError), but the error text about 'table' is boilerplate that contradicts the incident-specific nature and the listed return ('list of parsed Pydantic models') is vague for a single-record fetch.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the docstring block spends lines on a ':raises MissingParameterError: If table is not provided' clause that is irrelevant to an incident tool and doubles as noise. Mixed structured/unstructured boilerplate without clear value.

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?

A 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation is substantially under-described; the description covers roughly one parameter and a rough return type. It falls short of what an agent needs to invoke this correctly, especially around query/field-filtering parameters.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It documents only incident_id (as the sys_id) and ignores every sysparm_* control (fields, limit, display_value, exclude_reference_link, etc.), leaving the agent to guess at pagination and shaping behavior.

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: 'Retrieve details of a specific incident record.' The word 'specific' plus the singular name implicitly separates it from the sibling servicenow_get_incidents, though it never names that sibling. Clear purpose, but no explicit differentiation.

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 statement of when to prefer servicenow_get_incidents or servicenow_get_table_record instead, and no prerequisites or auth context. The agent must infer the single-record retrieval scenario entirely from the name.

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