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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title — no note on GLPI entity hierarchy, permission/visibility scoping (entities are access-controlled in GLPI), or what 'retrieve' returns at a high level. With the annotation bar already met, the description contributes no extra behavioral context.

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 zero filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the gaps elsewhere rather than a deliberate trade-off.

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, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the surrounding context an agent needs to choose this tool — when an entity ID is warranted over listing or over glpi_get_my_entities — leaving the definition merely adequate.

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 both optional enums ('fields', 'format') are documented in-schema with their defaults and semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it cannot exceed the baseline; a 3 is the correct floor when the schema fully carries the parameter burden.

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 an entity by ID'), which cleanly separates it from the listing sibling glpi_list_entities. However, it never names or contrasts against the similar one-off readers glpi_get_my_entities or glpi_get_asset, so the agent gets no explicit sibling differentiation beyond the ID hint.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus glpi_list_entities (browse/filter) or glpi_get_my_entities (current user scope). No prerequisites, no note that entityId must be known in advance, no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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