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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: at-least-once delivery, visibility timeout redelivery, promotion to dead letters after max_attempts, and concrete free-tier quotas (1,000 queues, 10,000 pushes/day). It omits auth requirements and whether purge is irreversible, and the 'dead_only?' flag implies a parameter not present in 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then an action->parameter index, then the delivery semantics and quota. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical argument lists avoid re-stating what is already in the 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?

For a 10-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool it covers actions, control flow, and limits well. The remaining gap is return shape: it never says pull yields message ids that ack requires, nor what stats/dead return, which an agent needs to complete the pull-ack cycle.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and does: it scopes each parameter to its action (push takes queue/message/messages[]/delay_s/max_attempts; pull takes queue/max/visibility_s; nack takes ids/delay_s/error; purge takes dead_only) and adds a constraint the schema lacks (max<=10). This is the only source of parameter meaning in the definition.

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 names a specific resource ('Durable job queues for bots') and enumerates all eight actions with their arguments, so an agent knows exactly what surface this tool exposes. No sibling in the list (cron, wake_*, lock) serves the same durable-message-queue role, and the action list makes the distinction self-evident.

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 gives per-action usage semantics in-line: 'ack when done or the message returns after visibility_s', nack with error/delay, max<=10 on pull. That tells an agent how to drive the at-least-once loop, but it never states when to prefer this tool over cron/wake or when the queue pattern is inappropriate.

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