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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them while adding real context: the 300-character preview default, the 10-row cap when full text is requested and the reason (full scripts of the whole queue don't fit in a response). It also explains that position numbers are max+1 with holes after deletions, so position means order, not a counter or priority — non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise misread.

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 description is dense but front-loaded: the resource and ordering come first, then the two flagged caveats about script text and position. Its repetition of 'ВАЖНО' and the length of the position passage are the main inefficiencies, but every sentence carries information the 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?

Two optional parameters, no output schema, no nesting. The description compensates by describing the shape of what comes back (default truncated preview, the job_id the agent needs to pass to production_set, the ordering) and its hard limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and act on the result 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it frames the preview as the default and explains the tradeoff behind the 10-row limit, telling the agent why turning on include_script_text is costly. It stops short of describing interactions with limit beyond what the schema already states.

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 first sentence names a specific resource (the key owner's shooting queue) and its scope: what is in progress and what has already been shot. The ordering rule (unshot first, then by position) further pins down what the call returns, enough for an agent to distinguish it from any sibling list tool.

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?

Explicit gating on the optional parameter: request full script text 'only when it is really needed,' otherwise the 300-character preview is used. It also routes state changes to a different tool ('Менять состояние — production_set') and preempts a false affordance by stating reordering is impossible via API at all — here or in the web UI.

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