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 by structured data. The description adds the workflow prerequisite for glpi_search, which is genuinely useful, but 'Returns field IDs, names, and types' duplicates the output schema and no auth/scope caveats are given.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the practical reason to call it. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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-value documentation in the description is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile for this read-only, idempotent tool. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including examples (Ticket, User, Change, Problem, ITILCategory), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only says 'for an itemtype' and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 available search fields for an itemtype') and names what it returns (field IDs, names, types). No sibling in the list provides search metadata, so the tool is clearly distinguishable from glpi_list_* and glpi_search.

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?

'Critical for building search criteria with glpi_search' explicitly ties the tool to a workflow and names the downstream consumer, giving a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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