query_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'pagination' which is a behavioral trait not evident from the schema alone, but lacks details like default pagination behavior or that the query uses ServiceNow's encoded query format.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a list of capabilities. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific about the query format.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, and annotations provide safety context, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the return format or how pagination works (e.g., whether offset is supported). For a query tool, missing details like query syntax offset completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description summarizes those as 'filtering, field selection, pagination, and sorting', which adds a high-level grouping but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb 'Query' and resource 'ServiceNow records', and lists specific capabilities: filtering, field selection, pagination, sorting. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record (single record) or list_incidents (table-specific).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large sibling list including get_record, list_incidents, and trend_query, the agent would benefit from explicit context about when query_records is appropriate (e.g., for complex filters across tables) and when to use other tools.

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