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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine operational constraint not present in structured data: a minimum GLPI version. It does not discuss pagination behavior, which the schema handles via 'range'.

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 short clauses with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the compatibility caveat follows. Every sentence carries information.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and the version prerequisite plus the field list make the definition adequate for a simple read-only list tool. Only the lack of routing guidance versus sibling list/get tools leaves a small gap.

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% and all four optional parameters (range, fields, format, expand_dropdowns) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List configured webhooks') and even names the data points returned (event, itemtype, target URL, active flag). It is distinguishable from glpi_get_webhook and glpi_create_webhook by name, but never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The GLPI 10.0.7+ prerequisite is a real usage constraint, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over glpi_get_webhook or glpi_list_webhook_deliveries, and no exclusions. Usage is implied by the 'list' scope only.

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