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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'compatibility matcher' context, but does not disclose return format, whether multiple items may be returned, or how parameters affect behavior. Minimal value beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence, direct and front-loaded, with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain return values, matching algorithm behavior, or parameter usage, making it difficult for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct options.

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 17% (compact and printer_id have descriptions), leaving 10 parameters undocumented. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like filters, sorting, settings, and deselects remain completely ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool finds best-matching queue items for printers using a compatibility matcher, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling get_next_queue_items_for_printers, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage—when you need to match queue items to printers—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_next_queue_items_for_printers or list_queue. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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