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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the queue join is idempotent, that resume_ref is retained so the refused call can be retried after admission, that an invite code bypasses the queue exactly once, and that estimates may be null when not measured. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) only set the safety profile; the description supplies the actual operational behavior.

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?

Front-loads the governing principle ('Hands access is gated by measured capacity') before the trigger condition and the per-action details, with no filler. The second and third sentences are long and heavily parenthetical, which slightly hurts scannability but every clause carries information.

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 output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the status payload (state enum values, position, estimate, published rules, admitted flag). The only gap is what action=request returns immediately on joining the queue (e.g., position at join time), which is implied but not stated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds outcome-level meaning: resume_ref is the task_ref from the refused call and comes back as 'resume' once admitted, and invite_code skips the queue only once. It also notes action defaults to request, which the schema only hints at.

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 resource (Hands access gate) and the two concrete actions (request/status) it performs, and explicitly frames it as the tool you reach for when a Hands call is refused with hands_access_required — which cleanly separates it from siblings like alterlab_hands_run or alterlab_hands_answer.

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?

Gives a precise triggering condition ('Use when a Hands call returns a request_hands_access next_action') and explains the branch between action=request and action=status, including when invite_code applies. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or naming a sibling alternative, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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