Instance scan progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it throws MissingParameterError when progress_id is absent and returns a parsed Pydantic model. It says nothing about how often to poll or what the progress payload contains.

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 sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the definition carries Sphinx docstring boilerplate (:type, :rtype, :raises) whose return-type line ('Response containing parsed Pydantic model') adds little. It is neither bloated nor tight — acceptable but not 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what a caller receives, and 'parsed Pydantic model with instance scan progress' is too vague for a progress-polling tool. Combined with 43 parameters at 0% coverage and no annotation-independent guidance on polling cadence, the definition is under-specified for its complexity.

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 43 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It documents only progress_id (naming and typing it), which usefully implies the other 42 parameters are irrelevant boilerplate, but 42 parameters remain completely undescribed in both schema and description. Partial compensation only.

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 progress information for an instance scan based on the provided progress ID.' An agent can identify this as a progress-polling read tool. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as servicenow_progress, servicenow_full_scan, servicenow_suite_scan, or servicenow_combo_suite_scan, so it cannot be a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Usage is only weakly implied (poll this after kicking off an instance scan), and the presence of a generic sibling like servicenow_progress makes routing ambiguous. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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