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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the count categories returned and noting that per-queue settings come back when the queue parameter is supplied, but it discloses nothing about pagination, limits, or auth beyond what the schema already says.

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 semicolon-joined sentence with no filler; the counts are front-loaded. The second clause is slightly awkward and compressed to the point of ambiguity, but it is efficient overall.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned count categories and the per-queue settings mode, compensating somewhat for the missing return documentation. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the per-queue settings contain.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, giving a baseline of 3. The description only restates the queue parameter's behavior ('with queue, that one queue and its settings'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (show) and resource (your queues) and enumerates the returned counts by state (ready, delayed, leased, dead), which lets an agent tell it apart from mutating siblings like queue_put or queue_claim. It does not explicitly name a sibling, and the phrase about 'settings' blurs the line with queue_settings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 never says when to use this tool versus queue_settings or the other queue_* operations, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the read-only nature of the tool, which is thin guidance.

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