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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses non-destructive behavior, FIFO ordering, returned content (item ids and values), pagination via cursor, and owner-only access. It doesn't explain visibility semantics or error behavior, but it provides substantial behavioral transparency beyond the tool name.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded ('non-destructively, in FIFO order'), followed by useful return and pagination details, and the access constraint is stated last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be more complete. It covers purpose, ordering, pagination, and ownership, but omits the role of the required slug/name parameters, the behavior of limit, and the exact output shape beyond 'item ids and values.' An agent would need additional inference or external knowledge to call it reliably.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It explains that cursor is for pagination and mentions owner-only access, but it does not explain the required 'slug' and 'name' parameters or the 'limit' parameter. For a tool with five parameters, this leaves most of the calling contract unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('visible items in a queue'), and adds the key qualifiers 'non-destructively' and 'in FIFO order.' This clearly distinguishes it from destructive queue tools like queue_pop and queue_ack without needing to open 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect items non-destructively and paginate with a cursor. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like queue_pop/queue_fetch or state when not to use it, but the non-destructive framing makes the intended use obvious.

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