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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond these: it specifies the 'bounded' nature, environment scoping, and the required permission cases:review. This is valuable additional behavioral information without contradicting any annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the core action and the key requirement. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a simple tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, environment scoping, bounded nature, and permission. It doesn't detail the return format, but that's less critical for a straightforward list operation, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the 'limit' parameter. Although the schema gives type and constraints (number, 1-200), the description doesn't compensate by explaining that 'limit' controls the maximum number of queue items returned. The parameter is named 'limit' and is fairly intuitive, but the description offers no semantic clarification.

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 clearly states the tool's action (List), resource (bounded Klarefi operator queue), and scope (for this API key's environment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which explicitly address operator queue listing.

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 provides clear context: it lists a bounded queue specific to the API key's environment and requires the cases:review permission. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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