Get ServiceNow Record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds only minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'Returns: The record's field values') and does not discuss error cases, permissions, or rate limits. This is acceptable given strong annotations, but not rich.

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 structured with Args, Returns, and Examples, making it easy to scan. Every sentence is purposeful, though the Args section partially duplicates the schema descriptions, preventing a perfect score.

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 simple read-by-sys_id tool, it includes purpose, parameter explanations, and examples. It lacks explicit output schema or error handling, but given the strong annotations and comprehensive schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'table', 'sys_id', 'display_value') and provides examples, but it does not add meaningful extra context beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Retrieve a single ServiceNow record by sys_id from any table,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from specialized getter tools like servicenow_get_incident by explicitly supporting any table.

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 implies usage via 'any table' and provides concrete examples for incident and CI records. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like the specialized getter tools or when to prefer this generic version over them, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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