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 covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond that: results are enriched with the author's user_name, which is useful context about what the call returns.

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 tight sentence with the resource and the enrichment detail front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but it is well structured.

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 covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to identify the resource, which it does. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation (list_followups vs list_change_followups vs list_problem_tasks), which the tool name largely handles.

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 all five parameters (range, fields, format, problemId, expand_dropdowns) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about pagination, format selection, or field trimming, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (followups of a problem) and clarifies the domain term by equating followups with comments. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical siblings glpi_list_followups or glpi_list_change_followups, though the problem-scoped resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a valid problemId), and no routing to alternatives such as glpi_get_problem or glpi_list_timeline. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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