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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds genuine operational context: Work responses arrive with room IDs and need no proposal review, the 15-second polling cadence, and the caution that completing setup 'does not prove autonomous execution.' That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 scope is front-loaded, but the body is a run-on mix of return fields, polling policy, callback routing, and session-scoped setup instructions compressed into two dense sentences. Each clause carries information, yet the packaging makes it hard to parse and the wake_setup_action reference is unexplained.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the kinds of state returned (queue, invitations, collaboration request, Work threads). It also flags the session-scoped setup follow-up, which an agent would otherwise miss, leaving only minor ambiguity about the shape of the response.

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 agent_key parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining the pattern, storage, and Authorization: Bearer alternative. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 enumerates exactly what the status snapshot covers: Speedbot Pro, queue, invitations, current non-Work conversation, open collaboration request, and active Work threads. That is a specific, concrete scope rather than a restatement of the title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like speedbot_notifications or speedbot_wait.

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?

It gives operational guidance — poll the live queue every 15 seconds, and for Work turns use callbacks, notifications, or speedbot_wait instead of raw polling — which names an alternative and its condition. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over speedbot_notifications or speedbot_discover, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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