servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions 'Semantic AI-powered' which suggests intelligent matching, but doesn't disclose performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, result format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is too sparse for a tool with potential complexity.

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 description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (structured results? relevance scores?), how results are ranked, whether there's pagination, or what makes this 'AI-powered' search different from standard searches. The context signals show 3 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides minimal operational guidance.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema (query, sources with specific values, limit with default). No additional context about parameter interactions, search behavior, or result ranking is provided.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'Semantic AI-powered search' across specific resources (KB, catalog, incidents) using ServiceNow AI Search. It specifies the verb 'search' and resources, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'natural_language_search', 'search_catalog', or 'search_knowledge' that might have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple search-related sibling tools (natural_language_search, search_catalog, search_knowledge, query_records, etc.), there's no indication of when this AI-powered search is preferred over other search methods or what specific advantages it offers.

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