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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' in the description repeats structured data rather than adding it. The only incremental behavioral value is naming the returned fields (slot schedules, channel assignments); pagination/filtering behavior is not disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the resource and its contents front-loaded. The trailing 'Read-only' clause is largely redundant against the readOnlyHint annotation, costing a little against otherwise excellent brevity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description reasonably sketches the return contents, but for a 6-param list tool with sparse schema docs it omits pagination semantics, filtering options, and the purpose of the nested query object, leaving real gaps.

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 only 33% (essentially just workspace_id). The description says nothing about limit, cursor, offset, brand_id, or the opaque nested `query` override object, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage on a 6-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (content queues) and adds what the results contain (slot schedules, channel assignments). It doesn't name sibling list tools or contrast with aidelly_create_queue/aidelly_add_queue_items, but the list-vs-mutate distinction is self-evident from the verb.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of sibling list_* tools (list_workspaces, list_scheduled_posts, list_posts), the agent gets no routing guidance about which list surface answers which question, nor any prerequisites.

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