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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the key side effect (starting the 2-day timelock) and the prerequisite (Succeeded state), which are the most critical behavioral traits. It does not cover failure modes or additional restrictions, but the disclosed information is sufficient for basic use.

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 a single well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes all essential information without any fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one fully documented parameter, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and the consequence, making it fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter as 'Proposal ID (1-indexed)' with min/max constraints. The description merely echoes '(proposalId)' without adding extra semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 builds queue calldata for a Succeeded Jestermogger proposal, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'queue(proposalId) calldata' distinguishes it from siblings like build_execute_tx or build_propose_tx, which handle different governance actions.

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 provides a clear usage context: it is for proposals that have already 'Succeeded' and it starts the 2-day timelock, after which execution becomes possible. This implies the workflow position but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusionary conditions.

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