Get table record

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 usefully adds that a MissingParameterError is raised when table or table_record_sys_id is absent, plus the return type. It says nothing about pagination, permission requirements, or what happens with the many sysparm_* options, so it is adequate but not rich.

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, which is good, but the Sphinx docstring boilerplate (:type: lines that duplicate the schema types) adds bulk without adding information. Overall it is only moderately efficient.

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 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description leaves most parameters undocumented and gives no hint about query syntax, field masking, or pagination behavior. An agent calling this tool correctly would have to guess at the semantics of the majority of its inputs.

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 16 parameters, so the description must compensate — but it documents only 2 of them (table, table_record_sys_id). The 14 sysparm_* / api_parameters / name_value_pairs parameters (pagination, field selection, display value, query filters) are entirely unexplained anywhere. It also contradicts the schema by declaring these two parameters mandatory while the schema marks them nullable with default null.

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 a specific record from the specified table.' Combined with the tool name and the sys_id parameter, an agent can distinguish this from siblings like servicenow_get_table (list) and servicenow_add_table_record. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (servicenow_get_table for listing, servicenow_update_table_record for mutation). The only implicit signal is 'a specific record' via sys_id, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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