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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that returned records are enriched with author/technician/group names, which is modestly useful context but leans on output content rather than new behavioral traits.

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 that identifies the resource and the enriched return fields with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably sparse given the tool's available parameters.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool, the annotations cover safety, the schema covers all four parameters, and an output schema exists to explain returns. The description is complete enough to call the tool correctly, with only routing guidance 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 range, fields, format and problemId are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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 (tasks for a problem), which cleanly separates it from glpi_list_problem_followups and glpi_list_problems. It also names the enriched fields returned (author, technician, group names), but does not explicitly contrast itself with the parallel task listers like glpi_list_ticket_tasks or glpi_list_change_tasks.

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 and no named alternatives. The phrase 'for a problem' implies the tool is scoped to problems, but an agent gets no explicit routing rule against the many sibling list_* tools.

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