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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context by listing the count categories and noting that settings are included for a specific queue, but it does not describe pagination, limits, or exact response shape.

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?

The definition is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The phrasing 'with queue, that one queue and its settings' is slightly awkward and could be clearer, but it does not waste space.

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 queue-status tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description broadly explains what is returned (state counts and optional settings). It does not specify whether all queues are returned by default or how results are ordered, which leaves a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 already documented in the input schema. The description echoes the queue parameter's behavior ('with queue, that one queue and its settings') without adding new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states the resource (queues) and the specific content returned (ready, delayed, leased, and dead counts, plus settings when a queue is specified). This is more specific than a tautology and partially distinguishes it from sibling tools like queue_dead or queue_settings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as queue_settings, queue_dead, or queue_claim. The description implies a status-viewing use case but does not state when-not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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