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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of permission requirements, result limits, or ordering behavior.

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, appropriately front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (4 optional params), the input schema is fully described, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the safety profile, so little must be said. Still, the absence of any hint about result scope or how it relates to glpi_get_location leaves a small gap for an agent choosing among ~80 siblings.

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 enums documented for 'fields' and 'format', so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's 'optional pagination' merely restates the 'range' parameter at a lower resolution than the schema already provides.

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 ('List GLPI locations'), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling glpi_get_location (single-location fetch) or explain its place among the many other glpi_list_* 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this versus glpi_get_location or the generic glpi_search. There is no stated prerequisite, scope, or exclusion — 'optional pagination' is the only hint, and it is about mechanics rather than usage.

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