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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: test accounts are excluded and identities are self-declared, which affects data interpretation. This enriches the agent's understanding of the returned data without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Read actual activity and queue counts'), and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral caveat. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it reads and a key data-quality note. It does not detail the return format, but that is not mandated without an output schema, and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit alternative routing, but the overall description is adequate for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description need not explain parameters, and it correctly does not. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity about invocation.

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 verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('actual activity and queue counts'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like speedbot_read, but the resource specificity makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for obtaining activity/queue counts but does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate in certain scenarios. The only context is that test accounts are excluded, which is a data-quality caveat, not a usage directive.

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