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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine output behavior the annotations do not: dropdown IDs are resolved to names and status/priority values are localized to the GLPI user's language.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the output-shaping detail follows. Nothing here is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and output shaping instead. For a simple four-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, with only the when-to-use guidance left unaddressed.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema and a baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes changeId ('by ID') and hints at name expansion, which maps loosely to expand_dropdowns and fields, but adds no new syntax or defaults.

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 gives a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a change), and the 'by ID' qualifier separates it from glpi_list_changes without needing a schema read. It never names the sibling alternatives explicitly, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching a single change by its identifier as opposed to listing changes. There is no statement about when to prefer this over glpi_list_changes or glpi_search, and no prerequisites such as read permissions on the item.

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