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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating the possible returned states and some associated fields such as position, eta_s, bench, and ends_at in Unix seconds.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted prose, and it front-loads the core concept of the session's queue place. The parenthetical state breakdown is efficient, though the phrasing is dense and could be slightly clearer.

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 does a reasonable job of explaining the possible return states and key fields. However, for a tool with two undocumented optional parameters, it leaves important invocation details unresolved, so the definition is only adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two optional parameters, but it does not meaningfully describe either session or agent_token. The word 'session' hints at the session parameter, but there is no explanation of defaults, whether omission means the current session, or what agent_token is for.

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 clearly identifies the resource: the session's place in a queue, with possible states none, waiting, or turn. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly differentiate this status tool from siblings such as queue_join, queue_leave, or session_status.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for checking a session's current queue position or turn state. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer queue_join, queue_leave, or session_status instead.

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