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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: dropdown IDs come with names beside them, and names are rendered in the GLPI user's language, which affects how results should be read.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by field-shape context and the routing note. No filler, and the most important information comes first.

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 need not explain return values, and it still closes the main gap an agent would hit: where to find ticket users and groups. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this read-only tool is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by enumerating the name fields that appear alongside IDs (recipient_name, category_name, entity_name, status_name, type_name, priority_name), which clarifies the default non-expanded behavior and the trade-off behind expand_dropdowns.

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 with explicit scope: retrieve a single ticket by ID. It is immediately distinguishable from the many list/create/update ticket siblings, and the singular 'single ticket by ID' rules out the listing tools.

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?

Gives clear 'when not' guidance by naming glpi_list_ticket_users and glpi_list_ticket_groups as the tools for requesters/technicians/observers/groups, which are not ticket fields. It does not explicitly contrast with glpi_list_tickets or glpi_search, but the alternative routing for related data is concrete.

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