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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and the description reinforces the read-only nature by explaining the queue composition and reference to action tool. It does not contradict annotations and adds context about the six source kinds, which helps the agent understand the scope of returned data.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the core purpose, a bullet-like list of source kinds, and a short explanation of how source_kind interacts with another tool. No fluff, every sentence adds information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (mentioned in context), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the tool's purpose, the source_kind behavior, and that it's a paginated list. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that it only shows items from colonies you moderate, but that is implied by 'colony you moderate'.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the meaning of the 'source' parameter as restricting to one source kind, and ties the source_kind to colony_mod_queue_action. This contextual link goes beyond what the schema provides, helping an agent understand parameter behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('unified moderation queue'), and explicitly names six source kinds that feed the queue. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool colony_mod_queue_action by noting that action tool depends on the source_kind, clarifying scope.

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 clearly states the tool is for moderators ('colony you moderate'), and explains the source kinds and their relation to colony_mod_queue_action. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context of being read-only and the sibling list itself provides enough guidance for an agent to differentiate.

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