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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: attempts are reset, a fresh 24-hour lifetime applies, and the doorbell rings (presumably notifying the recipient). The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It could add more about side effects or failure modes, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, the target, the scope, and the behavioral effects in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and the pointer to bus_history is a useful addition without bloat.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description covers the main action, the target, the behavioral effects, and the discovery path. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'as' parameter, which prevents a perfect score. Overall, an agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly for the primary use case.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It explains the purpose of message_id implicitly (the message to replay) but does not explain the 'as' parameter at all. The description adds some context for message_id but leaves 'as' undocumented, which is a gap given zero schema coverage.

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 verb ('re-queue') and resource ('a dead-lettered or expired message'), and explicitly scopes it to messages addressed to the agent ('addressed to you'). It also distinguishes itself from related bus operations by naming the candidate source (bus_history with status 'dead_letter'). This is clear and differentiates from siblings like bus_send, bus_ack, and bus_nack.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to replay a dead-lettered or expired message. It also tells the agent where to find candidates ('Find candidates with bus_history {status:"dead_letter"}'), which is a direct pointer to the sibling tool to use before this one. This is strong usage guidance.

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