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 elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own (no note on what happens with an invalid/unknown ID, permissions, or output shape), so it contributes essentially nothing beyond structured 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and the key identifier. It is efficient, though its brevity is also why it leaves gaps the other dimensions penalize.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage handle safety and parameters. What remains missing is routing context against the list/update/create siblings, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, with clear enum descriptions for 'fields' and 'format' and a documented 'expand_dropdowns' flag, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description mentions only the ID and adds no meaning beyond it, which fits the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('followup template'), and access method ('by ID'), which an agent can act on directly. It does not distinguish itself from glpi_list_itil_followup_templates, so the agent must infer that this is the single-item lookup versus the listing.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives (glpi_list_itil_followup_templates, glpi_update_itil_followup_template, glpi_create_itil_followup_template). The 'by ID' phrasing implies the precondition of needing an ID, but that is the only usage cue.

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