Submit Service Catalog Request

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral details such as return values (created REQ and RITM numbers) and the need to get variables from a sibling tool. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like triggering approvals, validation failures, or permission requirements.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and a Tip. It is concise, front-loaded with the action, and every section adds value without unnecessary prose. The omission of response_format in Args is minor because the schema covers it.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: required parameters, defaults, return identifiers, and a workflow prerequisite. It does not explain error cases or further approval steps, but the combination of schema (for parameters) and description (for workflow) is largely complete.

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 adds some context beyond the schema, such as clarifying requested_for defaults to the current user and pointing to servicenow_get_catalog_item for variable requirements. Yet it omits response_format from the Args list, and most parameter meaning is already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a service catalog request using the ServiceNow Service Catalog API.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling record/change/incident tools by naming the catalog request domain and mentioning return values REQ/RITM.

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 a clear usage context and a concrete prerequisite tip: 'First use servicenow_get_catalog_item to see required variables before submitting.' This guides when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion.

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