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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to what the connected user may see, the default ordering is by last update, and dropdown names are returned in the GLPI user's language. It does not mention pagination limits or result-set size behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences with the scope and default ordering front-loaded and the sibling routing last, which is the right priority order. The middle sentence enumerating row fields is the weakest part — it is partly redundant with the output schema — but it still communicates the localization detail efficiently.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-shape detail is not required, and the description covers scope, defaults, status filtering and the sibling alternative. It omits mention of the range/pagination parameter, which matters for an instance-wide listing that can be large, though the schema documents it explicitly.

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%, including the enum semantics for status, sort, order, fields and format, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description restates the status and sort behavior but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('List GLPI tickets'), names the scope of the listing ('the whole instance, every ticket the connected user may see'), and states the default ordering. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, glpi_list_my_tickets, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It gives the selection condition for this tool (instance-wide listing, permission-limited) and names the alternative with the exact condition that selects it ('For the connected user's OWN tickets use glpi_list_my_tickets instead'). It also clarifies the semantics of the primary filter (status: 'open' = not solved nor closed).

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