Search tickets, changes or problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result ordering ('newest change first'), the compact-summary return shape, and the legacy-API constraint on assignee/requester filters. It omits pagination behavior and any note on result volume, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ordering before the ID lookup tables, and every sentence carries usable information. The inline ID enumerations are dense but justified for a tool whose schema lacks those descriptions; minor cost is readability of the middle block.

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?

For a 12-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, return shape, filter semantics and one important API caveat. Gaps remain around pagination (limit/start) and what the ID-based user/group/category parameters accept, but nothing critical to a correct first call is missing.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates status IDs (1-6), priority IDs (1-6 with 'major'), and ticket_type values (1 incident, 2 request). Undocumented parameters remain (category_id, assigned_user_id, assigned_group_id, requester_user_id, priorities, limit), so it does not fully close the gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List tickets (or changes/problems)... with a compact summary of each', and explicitly scopes itself as the list-level tool versus glpi_get_ticket for single-item detail. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to glpi_get_ticket 'for the description, timeline and team of one item', and flags that assignee/requester filtering 'works on the legacy API only'. It does not differentiate itself from glpi_search_items or glpi_list_items, which are close siblings, so it falls short of a full when/when-not map.

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