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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is largely covered. The description adds ordering (default queue first) and pagination, which are useful behavioral details, but it does not describe return fields or pagination parameters.

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 short and front-loaded, with no padding. The repeated heading 'List queues' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the remaining sentences are efficient and useful.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description covers the core operation, ordering, and pagination. However, with no output schema and low parameter documentation, it leaves gaps around response shape and how to use page/pageSize/projectId 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 description coverage is reported as 0% and the description does not explain the request object, page, pageSize, or projectId. It only says the list is paginated, which hints at pagination but adds no meaningful syntax or constraint detail for the parameters an agent must supply.

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 resource: list the project's review queues. It adds useful scope details (default queue first, paginated) but does not clearly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like queue-get-stats or queue-retrieve beyond pointing to GET /queue/{id} for counts.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the name and first sentence. The description gives one alternative for item counts via GET /queue/{id}, but it does not explicitly say when to use queue-list versus queue-items-list or queue-get-stats, and it references an endpoint rather than the sibling tool name.

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