servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'useful for capacity planning' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles large datasets, performance characteristics, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Compare record counts...') and adds a brief usage note ('— useful for capacity planning'). There's zero waste—every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (comparing counts across tables/periods), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and hints at usage but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('tables' and 'query') thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra 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's purpose: 'Compare record counts across multiple ServiceNow tables or time periods'. It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('record counts'), and scope ('multiple ServiceNow tables or time periods'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_table_record_count' (which appears to get counts for a single table) or 'trend_query' (which might analyze trends over time).

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 implied usage guidance with '— useful for capacity planning', suggesting a specific context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_table_record_count' (single table) or 'trend_query' (time-based analysis), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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