Get most viewed knowledge articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the return shape ("list of parsed Pydantic models") and the ParameterError raise condition, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering semantics, pagination defaults, or view-count freshness beyond the title.

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 docstring is front-loaded with the purpose and organizes parameters cleanly, but a third of the parameter block documents fields absent from the schema, which is dead weight and actively misleading rather than concise.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations covering data shape, the description leaves most parameters unexplained and describes two that the schema does not accept. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from this description plus schema alone.

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 compensate, and it only covers five (sysparm_fields, sysparm_limit, sysparm_offset, kb, language). Worse, kb and language are documented but do not exist in the input schema, while seven real schema parameters (textSearch, sysparm_query, api_parameters, article_sys_id, name_value_pairs, attachment_sys_id, sysparm_search_id, sysparm_search_rank, sysparm_update_view) are undocumented anywhere.

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 ("Get most viewed Knowledge Base articles"), and the "most viewed" qualifier distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_knowledge_articles and get_knowledge_article. However, it never explicitly names those siblings or states what makes this ranking different from get_featured_knowledge_article, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 at all. With siblings such as servicenow_get_knowledge_articles, servicenow_get_knowledge_article, and servicenow_get_featured_knowledge_article in the same family, an agent gets no criteria for choosing this tool over them.

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