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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: per-slot queue counts, queue availability scoping based on team migration state, and the runtime failure implication of zero linked queues.

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, each earning its place: purpose first, return semantics second, actionable failure scenario third. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description communicates the return contents and even names a field (linked_queue_count). For a read-only diagnostic tool with only two required parameters, an agent has enough context to call it correctly and understand the result.

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 schema documents agent_id and build_id with 100% coverage, though the field descriptions are only 'Agent ID' and 'Build ID'. The tool description references 'this build's' and 'agent's automation' but does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool's function: checking whether a build's case-queue integration slots are wired correctly. It is specific about the resource (case-queue producer/consumer slots), the verb (Check), and the return shape, which distinguishes it from siblings like listRevisionIntegrationQueues.

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 explicitly says to check before starting work and tells the agent what to do if a slot has linked_queue_count of 0: use replaceRevisionIntegrationQueues to link a queue. This gives both a clear when-to-use condition and a concrete alternative action.

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