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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: results are keyed by Queue ID, Queues with no matches get zero counts, and Queue IDs from other teams are silently dropped. This prevents an agent from assuming errors or missing results in those cases.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: what it does, when to use it, what the results look like, and when to use the alternative. The most important scoping fact is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 present, the description compensates by explaining the response shape: counts keyed by Queue ID, including zero counts. It also covers the auth/team scoping caveat implicitly via the silently-dropped-other-team-IDs note and gives a clear routing alternative, so an agent can select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents queue_ids, team_id, and the date-range parameters. The description adds context about batching and queue scoping, but it does not need to explain parameter formats, and it does not substantially extend the schema's per-parameter meaning.

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, resource, and scope: 'Get case status counts for many Queues in ONE call.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like listCases, searchCases, and listQueues by emphasizing batched per-Queue counts.

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 to use this 'after listQueues whenever you need per-Queue counts' instead of calling listCases or searchCases once per Queue. It also names the alternative for single-Queue counts: 'listCases with count_only=true is the alternative.'

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