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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds value by specifying the exact statuses returned (PENDING, DENIED, REVISION), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. Minor inaccuracy: 'pending approval' is slightly misleading because DENIED is not pending, but the parenthetical clarifies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope in minimal words, and the parenthetical adds precise status information. Every element earns its place.

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 list tool with three optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It lacks details on pagination behavior, return format, or how the status parameter interacts with the default statuses. The ambiguity of whether the listed statuses are defaults or allowed values further reduces completeness, though the core purpose is clear.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'status' parameter by listing allowed values, but it does not clarify 'page' or 'per_page' defaults, limits, or behavior. The description also does not explicitly state that these statuses are the default filter or if they apply only when the status parameter is omitted.

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 identifies the verb ('List') and resource ('queue items') with a specific scope ('pending approval') and explicitly lists the statuses included (PENDING, DENIED, REVISION). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_queue or get_queue_item, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for viewing queue items that require attention (not yet fully approved). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_queue or when not to use it. The status list provides clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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