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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context about output behavior (dropdown names rendered beside IDs, localized labels in the GLPI user's language), but does not address the interaction with the expand_dropdowns/fields options or error behavior for a missing ID.

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 resource, access key, and output enrichment are all stated up front.

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 carry the safety profile, so return value and permission details are not needed in prose. For a read-only single-item fetch, the description supplies everything required to invoke it correctly.

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 two enum parameters fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how 'fields' interacts with name expansion or what 'format' affects for a single item) beyond what the schema already states.

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 problem by ID') and describes the output enrichment (names beside IDs, localized status/priority labels). It implicitly distinguishes itself from glpi_list_problems by the 'by ID' framing, but never names the list/search siblings explicitly.

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?

The 'by ID' phrasing implies this is the single-item fetch versus the list/search alternatives, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to glpi_list_problems or glpi_search for other access patterns.

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