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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that location_name, state_name and user_name are returned alongside the raw IDs, which tells the agent dropdown expansion is partly automatic. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed immediately by the routing hint. The long parenthetical enumeration of asset types partly duplicates the schema enum, costing a little economy without harm.

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, annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, and full schema coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call the tool. Only the absence of pagination/result-size guidance keeps it from being fully 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 three enum-typed parameters, so the schema already documents range, fields, format, asset_type and expand_dropdowns thoroughly. The description repeats the asset_type enum values and implies the name-beside-ID behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (assets) with the constrained scope (of a given type) and enumerates the valid asset types. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by name, so an agent can tell it apart from glpi_search and glpi_get_asset without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to glpi_search for filtered queries, which is the key selection rule among the many list_* siblings. It does not say when to prefer glpi_get_asset/glpi_get_asset_details for single-item retrieval, so a small gap remains.

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