List Change Requests

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by explaining the default non-closed filter, the encoded-query syntax, and the returned fields, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then argument bullets, common queries, and return statement. It avoids fluff, though some parameter details duplicate the schema descriptions.

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 list-with-filters tool, it covers defaults, query syntax, and common use cases, and there is no output schema so the return fields are stated. It could additionally discuss pagination edge cases, but limit/offset parameters and examples make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value with common query examples and clarifies pagination grouping, which goes beyond the schema's individual 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 first sentence states 'List ServiceNow change requests with filters' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like servicenow_get_change (single record) or servicenow_list_incidents (different resource).

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 clear context for when to use the tool and includes several concrete use-case examples (emergency changes, scheduled changes, approvals). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the filtered-list purpose is sufficiently clear from the examples and resource name.

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