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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does hint that this is a non-promoting gate that merely flags when a person must look, which is some disclosure. But it omits whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates state, who can call it, and what the side effects are — substantial gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, which is good, but the '[KEEP · internal]' prefix is internal bookkeeping that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Both sentences are terse, yet the core semantics remain cryptic rather than efficient.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description has to carry nearly the entire burden of meaning, and it does not. It never explains what a caller receives or how to act on a queue entry, leaving the tool's practical contract undefined.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain at the parameter level. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool where the schema imposes no semantic demands.

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 conveys the resource — a queue of items awaiting a human steward — but supplies no verb. It never says whether the tool lists, inspects, or drains that queue, so the agent must guess the operation. This is vague relative to a name like curate_queue, and it is not differentiated from siblings such as curate or curate_signable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to use it. The sibling set contains several related tools (curate, curate_signable, moderation_signable) that the agent must disambiguate on its own. The 'counter never promotes' line hints at the tool's role but does not tell the agent when to reach for it.

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