Refresh auth token

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it names the MissingParameterError failure mode and the exact condition that triggers it (basic auth or bearer-token sessions lacking client_id/client_secret). This prerequisite disclosure is what the annotations cannot convey.

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 content is short and the purpose is front-loaded in the first line. The residual Sphinx directives (:return:, :raises:) are raw-docstring artifacts rather than prose, a minor blemish but not enough to hurt readability materially.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what comes back (a refreshed token) and the one failure mode an agent must anticipate. Nothing critical about invoking it correctly is omitted.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%, zero properties), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: refresh the authentication token. This is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the related sibling servicenow_sdk_auth, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied (call it to get a new token) and the description notes a real precondition – the client must have been authenticated with OAuth client credentials. But it never states when to reach for this versus re-authenticating via servicenow_sdk_auth or other auth siblings, leaving the selection to inference.

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