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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds real context: the ordering guarantee, the queue lifecycle (an item disappears after the extension attempts it), and the authentication requirement. It does not cover pagination or what happens when the queue is empty, but the added value is clear.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, the lifecycle rule, and the auth prerequisite. Content is front-loaded with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return fields, and it correctly gestures at them ("same fields as search results") instead of enumerating. Combined with the ordering, lifecycle and auth notes, the only minor gap is pagination/empty-queue behavior for a read-only list.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage including the 1–25 range and a default of 10, so the schema fully carries this dimension. The description adds nothing about limit or truncation behavior, which is the correct baseline for a fully documented 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 jobs waiting in the user's auto apply queue" names a specific resource and adds ordering (oldest first), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. The distinction from list_auto_apply_history is only implied by "waiting in the queue" and "leaves the queue once the extension has tried it" rather than stated, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied by "waiting in the queue" — read this for pending items, history for attempted ones — but neither list_auto_apply_history nor queue_for_auto_apply is named, and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not framing.

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