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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds behavioral context: the return is per slot, includes linked_queue_count and bind availability, and scoping depends on whether the team is migrated. It also discloses the practical consequence of a zero-count slot, which helps agents act on the result.

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 description is compact and focused, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the key business rule and actionable follow-up in clear, structured prose.

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?

Given the read-only nature, two UUID parameters, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It communicates the expected return shape, important edge-case behavior, and the associated remediation step—more than sufficient for an agent to select and act on this tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptive names and uuid formats for agent_id and build_id, so the structured schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that the setup is scoped to a build and related automation, which is appropriate but not a major improvement over the schema.

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 action ('Check that this build's case-queue integration slots are wired up correctly') and clearly defines the resource: per-slot case-queue integration wiring for a build. It distinguishes itself from related tools like listRevisionIntegrationQueues by focusing on setup correctness and linked/available queue summaries, and it even references replaceRevisionIntegrationQueues as the fixer counterpart.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to verify case-queue integration wiring before starting work. It also explicitly identifies when follow-up is needed ('A slot with linked_queue_count of 0 ... will fail at runtime') and names the corrective tool (replaceRevisionIntegrationQueues), which provides a concrete routing decision.

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