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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real operational context: it will not disclose role tokens or extend the fixed expiry, and it requires the read token. It does not mention rate limits or whether counts are eventually consistent, which keeps it off a 5.

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, zero filler, with the positive scope front-loaded and the exclusions trailing. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining needs are auth and limits, both addressed. Minor gaps around count freshness and token-scope failures are the only omissions.

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% and both parameters carry descriptions pointing to create_agent_queue and create_agent_run for provenance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that the token is the read credential, which is marginal added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (queue metadata) and enumerates exactly what comes back: pending, claimed, completed and failed counts. The clause 'Does not list payloads' implicitly separates it from read_agent_queue_job, though no sibling is named directly.

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 establishes the precondition (a read token) and negative scope, so an agent can infer this is for status monitoring rather than job payload retrieval. However, it never states when to prefer this over read_agent_queue_job or read_agent_run, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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