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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: it requires a read token, does not expose payloads or role tokens, and does not extend the fixed expiry. These are important non-obvious safety and lifecycle details.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then state the key exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, strong safety annotations, and only two simple parameters, the description is complete. It covers the operation's scope, its access-token requirement, and its non-actions, leaving no critical decision gap for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that read_token is used as a scoped read credential and mentions security boundaries, but it does not explicitly define queue_id beyond the property name and tool context. The two parameters are simple and self-evident, but the description could do slightly more to document them.

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 action ('Read queue metadata and pending, claimed, completed and failed counts') tied to a clear resource ('agent queue'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT do: list payloads, disclose role tokens, or extend the fixed expiry.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool for read-only queue-level metadata and counts with the read token. It also gives exclusions by stating it does not list payloads or disclose role tokens, though it does not name an explicit alternative sibling for those cases.

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