servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), result format, error conditions, or whether this searches across all catalog items or specific categories. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool and gets directly to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'catalog item', what fields are searched, the format of results, or how results are ranked/ordered. Given the complexity implied by the extensive sibling tool list and the absence of structured behavioral information, the description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description mentions 'keyword' which aligns with the query parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Search') and target resource ('service catalog') with the specific matching criteria ('items matching a keyword'). It distinguishes itself from generic 'search' tools by specifying the catalog domain, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling search tools like 'search_cmdb_ci' or 'search_knowledge' that exist in the sibling list.

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. With multiple sibling search tools present (search_cmdb_ci, search_knowledge, search_system_properties, natural_language_search, nlq_query), there's no indication of what makes this catalog search distinct or when it's preferred over other search methods.

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