Get entity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing on top of that: no note that a nonexistent ID fails or returns empty, no hint about what the 'essential' vs 'all' field sets change in practice. With annotations carrying the load this is a minor gap, but the description contributes zero behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is arguably terse enough to be under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 and all three parameters (including both enums) are described in-schema, so the description need not explain return values or formats. What remains missing for a lookup tool is any failure/not-found behavior or routing guidance, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 both enums are documented in-schema, so the description's phrase "by ID" only restates the required entityId parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 ("Retrieve an entity by ID"), which cleanly separates it from glpi_list_entities, glpi_create_entity, glpi_update_entity and glpi_delete_entity. It stops short of naming those siblings or the condition that selects this tool over them, so it lands just below the top band.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no statement of when this is preferable to glpi_list_entities or glpi_get_my_entities. The ID-based retrieval is only implied by the tool name and purpose line.

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