servicenow-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of articles with metadata), pagination behavior, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (search functionality with three parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters ('query', 'limit', 'knowledge_base') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'by keyword' which aligns with the 'query' parameter but doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 'Search knowledge base articles by keyword' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('knowledge base articles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_article' or 'list_knowledge_bases' beyond the search functionality.

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 'get_knowledge_article' (for retrieving specific articles) or 'list_knowledge_bases' (for listing knowledge bases). It lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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