Submit Catalog Request

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

The description supplements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false) with an explicit warning that this 'creates a real service request on the instance.' This adds important context beyond the machine-readable metadata. It also explains the return value, but does not discuss failure modes, permissions, or rate limits, which would have been even more transparent.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured. The first sentence states purpose and returns, the second provides a critical warning, and the third offers practical variable-passing guidance. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, return values, a side-effect warning, and a prerequisite suggestion. It effectively covers the essential information an agent needs to use the tool correctly, including how to handle variables and reference fields.

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 covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal new semantic information—reiterating that variables should be a key-value object and reference fields use sys_ids. This reinforces the schema but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond it.

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 function: 'Submit a service catalog request using the ServiceNow order_now API.' It also specifies the outputs (REQ and RITM numbers), distinguishing it from sibling catalog tools like list_catalog_items or get_catalog_item.

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 guidance by instructing users to 'Use list_catalog_item_variables first' to understand required variables. It also warns that the tool 'creates a real service request,' implying cautious use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or describe an alternative for the same action.

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