List timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default merge order (oldest first), the enrichment with people's names and solution type name, and the fact that it consolidates four sources — none of which the annotations convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is merged and the default ordering, closing on the value proposition versus manual interleaving. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields; it still names the key enriched fields an agent would care about. Combined with full schema coverage and strong annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% with enums on four parameters, so the schema already documents order, range, fields, format, itemId and itemtype. The description reinforces the 'order' default ('oldest first; order desc for the latest first') but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (list/merge) and resource (followups, tasks, solutions, validations of a ticket/change/problem merged into one chronological list). The sentence 'Replaces calling the four list tools separately and interleaving them by hand' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling *_followups and *_tasks list tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 description gives clear context for when to reach for this tool: when you want a unified chronological view of an item's activity instead of stitching four separate lists. It implicitly points at the alternatives it supersedes, but offers no explicit exclusions (e.g., when to still prefer glpi_list_followups alone).

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