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

The annotations already convey that this is mutating, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the key behavioral fact that this only leaves the waiting queue and does not end a conversation, but it does not provide additional context such as what happens if the agent is not in a queue or whether any state is affected beyond the queue.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool routing is placed second, making the most important information immediately visible.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description plus input schema and annotations are largely sufficient. It clearly states the action and the boundary with speedbot_decide; a minor gap is that it does not describe the outcome when called outside a waiting-queue context, though the idempotentHint partially mitigates this.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the agent_key parameter is thoroughly documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the full explanatory weight.

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 and resource: 'Leave the waiting queue.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from another tool by noting that ending a conversation should be done via speedbot_decide with pass, which prevents an agent from confusing the two operations.

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 clearly names the alternative tool and the exact condition for using it: 'To end an existing conversation use speedbot_decide with pass.' This gives the agent explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus a closely related sibling.

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