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. It states the tool queries data (implying a read operation) but doesn't mention whether it's safe, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. Every word earns its place—'Query' establishes the action, 'threat intelligence data' specifies the resource, and the list clarifies scope. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity of threat intelligence queries, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., structured data, raw indicators, confidence scores), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves too much undefined.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain query syntax, type filtering logic, or limit implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('threat intelligence data'), and lists the types of data (IOCs, threat actors, campaigns). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but given the sibling list contains no obvious threat intelligence alternatives, this is acceptable. The description avoids tautology by providing meaningful detail beyond the tool name.

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, context for usage, or exclusions. While the sibling list shows no direct competitors for threat intelligence queries, the description lacks any usage context, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.

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