servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the lookup action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned details, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential security or data implications.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'user details' includes, potential error cases, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are critical for safe and effective usage in a context with many sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'user_identifier' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'email or username' which aligns with the schema, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what's already structured.

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 action ('Look up') and resource ('user details') with specific identifiers ('by email or username'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_record' or 'list_users' which might also retrieve user information, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 'list_users' or 'get_record' for user retrieval. It mentions the input method ('by email or username') but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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