query_fluent_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond these: it specifies a JSON envelope return, SDK version, and authentication handling (auto-injected or passed explicitly). It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the added context meets the lower bar set by the annotations.

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 three focused sentences: purpose, return type, and required inputs. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy or filler.

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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough guidance to invoke the tool correctly: it names the required inputs, provides an example, and mentions authentication. It could additionally describe the JSON envelope structure or automatic pagination, but the schema and core usage are sufficiently covered for a capable agent.

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% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by highlighting the core parameters (table, query) and providing a concrete encoded query example. It also clarifies the auth parameter's auto-injection behavior, which adds meaning beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a read-only query against a ServiceNow table via the Table REST API'. It clearly states what the tool does and the output ('Returns matching records as a JSON envelope'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on building, deploying, or transforming apps.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: a read-only query requiring a table and encoded query, with an example ('active=true^priority<=2'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list contains no other query tool, and the intended use is unambiguous.

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