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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive read operation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the returned counts honor the queue's filters and date window, matching dashboard behavior. It does not cover auth or error behavior, but that is less critical given the annotations.

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. The opening 'Get a queue' partly repeats the title, but the second sentence carries useful, non-obvious context about count semantics.

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 retrieval tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance around counts. However, it leaves parameter usage and sibling selection unaddressed, so it is only adequately complete.

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 description says nothing about the required queue ID or the optional projectId. Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning but does not. The nested schema does contain field-level descriptions, which prevents this from being a 1.

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 and resource ('Get a review queue') and adds that the response includes item counts. It is clear enough to distinguish retrieval from list-type siblings, though it does not explicitly name queue-list or queue-get-stats as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Get a queue', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus queue-list or queue-get-stats. The note about counts matching the dashboard clarifies the result semantics but not tool selection.

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