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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: members are expanded into the result and ordering follows the Settings configuration, plus how to continue paging. It stops short of saying what happens when there are no queues or whether a default limit applies.

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 short sentences with no wasted words, and the resource plus ordering are front-loaded ahead of the paging mechanics. The opening noun-phrase fragment is slightly less scannable than a verb-led sentence would be.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (queues with members), how it is ordered, and how to paginate. Only minor gaps remain, such as default page behavior and empty-result handling.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, and purpose. The description's only parameter-adjacent content is the paging instruction to return next_cursor as cursor, which the cursor schema field also states, so no meaningful meaning is added beyond structured data.

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 names the specific resource (the workspace's call and ticket queues), the payload content (with their members), and the ordering rule from Settings. It is clearly distinct from the sibling desk_create_queue, though it is written as a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'List ...' verb, so the read action is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as desk_get_config or desk_list_agents for queue membership lookups. Usage is implied by the resource named, which is the minimum viable level.

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