Get a ticket, change or problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that timeline and team are optional expansions and enumerates their contents, but says nothing about behavior on a missing id, error responses, or how expensive the expansions are.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and content-bearing. The core fetch is stated first, followed by the optional expansions, 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?

This is a read-only fetch with no output schema, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the core return content and both optional expansions, leaving only error/id-not-found behavior unstated, which is minor for a lookup tool.

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 only 25% (only itil_type is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does so for the two booleans by defining what timeline (followups, tasks, solutions) and team (requesters, technicians, groups, observers) actually contain, which meaningfully clarifies what those flags return. It omits the default values and the id semantics, but the schema covers those.

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: 'Full details of one ticket (or change/problem)', with the optional timeline and team expansion spelled out. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the generic glpi_get_item by being ITIL-object specific, but never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetch one record by known id. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over glpi_get_item, glpi_search_tickets, or glpi_raw_get, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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