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 states it's a search tool, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it returns partial matches, supports pagination, has rate limits, requires specific permissions, or what the output format is. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant examples. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage (75%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral constraints, or usage context. For a search tool with four parameters, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 75%, with three parameters well-described and one ('limit') lacking a description. The description adds value by listing example artifact types ('business rules, scripts, widgets, etc.') and implying search criteria, but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter or provide additional syntax details beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Search for') and resource ('platform artifacts'), and specifies search criteria ('by name, type, or scope'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose as a search operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_catalog' or 'search_cmdb_ci'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other search tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'search_catalog', 'search_cmdb_ci', 'natural_language_search'). Usage is implied by the search functionality but lacks explicit context.

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