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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ({item_id}), the non-sensitive nature of push ('cheap/open by design'), and how to track delivery via queue_receipt_status. It does not mention side effects like queue auto-creation or idempotency, but these are minor for a push operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the follow-up usage is stated efficiently. Every word 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?

The tool is simple, and the description explains the return value and how to use it with a sibling tool. It does not mention error conditions or queue auto-creation, but these are not critical for a push operation. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's mention of the returned item_id.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already documents. It mentions the return value but not parameter specifics, which are fully covered in 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?

The description states a clear, specific action: 'Push a JSON value onto the tail of a named queue.' It names the resource (queue) and the direction (tail), and distinguishes it from the sensitive pop operation. It also mentions the return value, which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose.

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?

It provides context that push is cheap/open and contrasts with pop, implying push is the safe, immediate operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like queue_push_delayed or state when to choose one over the other. It does mention a follow-up tool (queue_receipt_status), which is helpful but not an alternative selection guide.

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