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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: batch size bounds, 64 KB per message, auto-creation of the queue on first use, and dedup_key semantics (same key returns the in-queue message while it is present). It does not explain what the call returns, which is the main omission.

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 the core action and limits, followed by the dedup rule. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 non-read-only write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers batching, sizing, auto-creation and dedup. Gaps remain on delay_seconds behavior and on what a successful put returns (no output schema to fall back on).

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 100% and sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the per-message 64 KB ceiling and the dedup_key behavior (schema leaves dedup_key and delay_seconds undescribed). delay_seconds semantics remain unexplained in both places, keeping it below 5.

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 (put) and resource (messages) with scope (1 to 100, into a named queue of your durable-queue plan). An agent can distinguish this from the other queue_* siblings (queue_claim, queue_ack, queue_status) without opening 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 write direction is implied by 'put' and the queue family makes the read counterparts obvious, but the description never states when to use this over alternatives (e.g. queue_claim to consume) or any prerequisites beyond having a durable-queue plan.

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