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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: hardware defaults, names-instead-of-IDs, and that softwares/networkports are large on inventoried hosts and only returned when requested. It stops short of describing pagination/truncation behavior beyond the schema's max_items_per_section.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds the default fields, the large-section caveat, and the sibling alternative in tight, waste-free prose.

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 exists, and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain returns. It covers the key behavioral caveats (default vs opt-in sections) needed to call correctly; minor gap is not restating truncation reporting, though the schema's max_items_per_section covers it.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that sections defaults to hardware fields and that softwares/networkports must be explicitly listed, which refines the schema's flat section list. It leaves fields/format/max_items_per_section to 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 and resource ('Get one GLPI asset ... together with its hardware details in a single call') and explicitly delineates the asset types and returned hardware fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling glpi_get_asset by naming it as the plain-record alternative.

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?

Tells the agent to use glpi_get_asset for the plain asset record and this tool for hardware details, and explains that softwares/networkports must be requested via sections. It does not cover when asset_type choices beyond the enumerated ones apply, but the routing guidance is explicit.

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