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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and "Read-only" merely restates that. The description does add real context beyond annotations: the `holdReason` when no runner can take a run, the `explanation` codes for why a run waits, and the note that this is the same `ciQueue` block the write tools return. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit behavior.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, and the length is partly justified because there is no output schema to carry the return-value detail. However, it is essentially one enormous run-on sentence stitched together with em-dashes and parentheticals, which makes it hard to scan for the single fact an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly — levels, counts, slots, ETA, per-repo scoping, work-class breakdown, recommendation, and executor/holdReason states. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% param coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 params are optional, so the schema baseline applies. The description still adds meaning: it explains that supplying owner+repo switches the response to that repository's runs, its share of CI work, the slots it may hold, a recommendation, and per-run wait explanations — detail the terse schema strings do not carry.

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 opening clause states a specific resource and scope: reporting how full the shared CI queue is, with level, queued/running runs, slots and ETA. It is clear what the tool does, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the close sibling `gluecron_ci_executor`, which the description also folds in as an `executor` output block.

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 a concrete use case: "Ask before a burst of pushes," and frames the tool as answering "what to do about it." There are no exclusions and no named alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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