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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: eligibility preserves the original approval, and the call yields a session id that a follow-up action needs. It does not describe what an ineligible result looks like or any throttling, but the key behavioral nuance is disclosed.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading what is returned before the session-id side benefit. It is dense but readable; a short clause on the ineligible case would improve it without bloating.

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 one-parameter read with strong annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it computes, the precondition, and the shape of the result (eligibility plus session id). Missing only the invalid/ineligible edge behavior, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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% for the single nested messageId parameter, so the schema contributes nothing and the description carries the burden. The phrase 'a message returned to Review from the queue' implicitly identifies which message id is expected, but the description never names messageId, its UUID format, or the failure behavior for an invalid id.

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?

States a specific verb and outcome: it returns eligibility for re-queuing a message unchanged plus the session id needed to do so, and scopes the input to a message 'returned to Review from the queue'. That distinguishes it from getQueuedMessage (a plain fetch) and returnQueuedMessageToReview (the mutation that creates the Review state), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 precondition is clearly implied: call this after a message has been returned to Review, before attempting to re-send it with its original approval. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., what to do when the message is still queued, or when it was materially edited), so an agent must infer the negative cases.

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