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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no permission requirements, no note about template reuse or visibility — it only restates the purpose and lists fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Slightly terse but every sentence carries information.

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?

Output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety are handled elsewhere. However, for a create tool whose schema hides the real fields behind an opaque object, more detail on field constraints, required vs optional, and template scope would help an agent call it correctly.

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 schema is a loose 'input' object with additionalProperties and 100% coverage of a single opaque parameter, so it does not actually document the nested fields. The description compensates by naming the concrete fields (name, content, comment, itemtype) and giving the allowed itemtype values, which is genuine value beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (followup template), which is clearly distinct from sibling create tools like glpi_create_ticket. It does not explicitly name what separates it from glpi_update_itil_followup_template or list templates, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (creating a reusable ITIL followup template) and the itemtype enumeration hints at the Ticket/Change/Problem scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance.

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