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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the cross-rule-type scope of the filter, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default limits, or result ordering, which the range parameter hints at.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second sentence adds only the filtering caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has no required parameters, making it low-risk. What remains is minor: no note on pagination defaults or result volume limits, which an agent listing a potentially large collection would benefit from.

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, but the description adds genuinely new semantics for rules_id: that it filters across any rule type (RuleTicket, RuleChange, RuleMailCollector), which the schema's terse "Rule ID to filter by" does not convey.

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+resource ("List rule actions") and even names the underlying endpoint GET /RuleAction. The parenthetical about working for any rule type implicitly distinguishes it from the ticket-specific sibling glpi_list_rule_ticket_actions, though that sibling is never named directly.

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 context for the tool: it lists rule actions globally and can be filtered by rules_id across RuleTicket, RuleChange and RuleMailCollector. This effectively tells the agent when to prefer this over the rule-type-specific variants, but there is no explicit "use X instead of Y" routing statement.

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