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

Annotations already mark this readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds material behavioral context by explaining creditsExhausted, accountGates verdicts (allowed, immediateOnly), and block reasons such as outside_business_hours or budget_exhausted. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by concrete return-field details and a usage tip. No redundant wording, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return semantics: item counts, creditsExhausted, accountGates, allowed/immediateOnly, and block reasons. For a read-only status tool, this is sufficient for an agent to call it and interpret results 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for workspaceId ('for a workspace') and campaignId ('Optionally filter by campaign'), though it does not name the parameters explicitly or mention the platform const. The const nature of platform reduces the need for explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current enrichment queue status for a workspace.' It enumerates distinct return fields (pending, processing, completed, failed, creditsExhausted, accountGates), which clearly separates it from related sibling tools like import-progress or contact-finder status tools.

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 description gives clear operational guidance: 'Use accountGates to explain why pending items are not moving' and notes that campaign filtering is optional. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it does not reach a 5, but the intended context is clear.

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