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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: Work responses already carry room IDs, need no proposal review, and the live queue has a specific polling cadence.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence defines scope, the second captures relevant behavioral facts, and the third gives cadence and alternatives. Every sentence carries actionable information with no 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 broad status tool with no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the returned status domains and the key polling/waiting behavior. It does not describe response structure or error conditions, but the listed scope is substantial enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke it and how to use its results.

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 covers 100% of the single optional parameter, including instructions for passing agent_key via Authorization: Bearer. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and enumerates exactly which resources are covered: Speedbot Pro, queue, invitations, the current non-Work conversation, collaboration requests, and active Work threads. It is clear what the tool returns an overview of, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with closely named siblings like speedbot_info or speedbot_activity.

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?

Beyond naming the resource, it gives explicit operational guidance: poll the live queue every 15 seconds, and for Work turns prefer callbacks, notifications, or speedbot_wait instead. This both says how to use the tool and when to route to an alternative, leaving little inference for the agent.

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