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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers ordering ('Newest first') and pagination behavior ('Page with next_cursor') that the schema does not express. It omits permission/auth requirements for viewing the queue, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: purpose first, ordering second, row shape and pagination last. Nothing is padded and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated row fields are partly redundant, but ordering and pagination are genuine additions. For a 5-parameter, zero-required list tool with a documented output schema, this is nearly complete; only auth/permission context is absent.

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 80%, so most parameters self-document (kind, status, source_glian, cursor). The description adds only the pagination mechanic via next_cursor, but that is a meaningful link to the cursor parameter beyond the schema's plain default.

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 and resource ('List the org's review queue') and clarifies the queue holds 'human decisions waiting on someone', which implicitly separates it from the mutating sibling review_decide. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading the queue follows naturally from the purpose. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. review_decide/review_policy_set guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about who should call it.

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