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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral content is the scope statement that this returns exactly one asset, which is minor; it says nothing about permissions, missing-ID behavior, or output shape (though an output schema exists).

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation trailing. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 rich annotations, a fully described five-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, which it does. It is complete for correct invocation, though a note on asset_type/assetId pairing errors or when to use glpi_list_assets would close the remaining gap.

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% and three of five parameters have enums, so the schema fully documents asset_type, assetId, fields, format and expand_dropdowns. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Retrieve a single asset by type and ID') and explicitly names the sibling it is not (glpi_get_asset_details for hardware detail). An agent can distinguish it from glpi_get_asset_details and glpi_list_assets without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to glpi_get_asset_details when hardware detail is needed, which is a real disambiguation against a very similarly named sibling. It does not, however, mention when to prefer glpi_list_assets for multiple items or state any prerequisites/permissions.

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