servicenow-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid inputs. The mention of 'time-bucketed' and 'monthly/weekly' adds some context, but critical operational details are missing for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 ('Get time-bucketed trend data for a table') and adds a brief use-case note ('useful for monthly/weekly trend charts'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level purpose and hints at output format (trend charts), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, return structure, or performance characteristics. For a read-only analytical tool with full schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the tool is for trend analysis and mentions 'monthly/weekly' buckets, which loosely relates to the 'periods' parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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: 'Get time-bucketed trend data for a table' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'trend data'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'useful for monthly/weekly trend charts', which hints at its analytical nature versus CRUD operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other query/analysis tools like 'analyze_data_quality' or 'run_aggregate_query'.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage for trend charts but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query_records', 'run_aggregate_query', or 'get_table_record_count'. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings are mentioned, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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