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

The readOnlyHint and related annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds useful workflow behavior by explaining saturation handling and the retryAfterSeconds backoff, though it does not describe edge cases or the exact response shape beyond running count and acceptance.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first states what is returned, the second gives the workflow rule. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only queue check with no output schema, the description covers the important return semantics (running count and acceptance) and the key follow-up behavior (wait retryAfterSeconds when saturated). Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.

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: it reports how many transcription jobs are running and whether a new job can be accepted. This clearly distinguishes it from job-status and submission siblings such as lunara_get_job, lunara_start_subtitle_job, and lunara_subtitle_from_url.

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?

It explicitly says when to call it — before submitting several jobs via lunara_start_subtitle_job or lunara_subtitle_from_url — and what to do when the queue is saturated: wait retryAfterSeconds rather than retrying immediately. That is concrete when-to-use and alternative-behavior guidance.

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