compare_record_counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the multi-table scope but does not disclose return format, potential performance implications, or permission requirements. With annotations covering the main safety aspect, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loading the main action and keeping unnecessary words to a minimum. The dash clause 'useful for capacity planning' is a brief, useful context. However, the phrase 'time periods' introduces ambiguity without explanation, slightly undermining structure clarity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value(s), but it only states the action and a use case. The schema covers parameters well and annotations handle safety, but the missing return format is a significant gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%: both tables and query have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the mention of time periods is not explicitly tied to a parameter, so it adds no semantic value.

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 compares record counts across multiple ServiceNow tables or time periods, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_table_record_count, though the mention of time periods without a schema parameter creates slight ambiguity.

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 phrase 'useful for capacity planning' provides a use case but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_table_record_count or query_records. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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