servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the output format (percentage per field), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large tables beyond the sample_size parameter.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, target, and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output format details beyond the basic percentage statement. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'ServiceNow table' context and 'percentage of non-empty values' output, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Analyze data quality and field completeness'), target resource ('ServiceNow table'), and output format ('returns percentage of non-empty values per field'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_data_quality' by specifying table-level completeness analysis rather than general data quality assessment.

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 like 'analyze_data_quality', 'get_table_schema', or 'get_table_record_count'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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