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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the shape of returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior or ordering, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what fields come back, with zero filler. The endpoint reference is compact and useful for agents that reason about REST paths.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the fields. Paging semantics live in the schema. Only ordering and empty-page termination guidance are absent, which is minor.

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 100%, and both page and per_page are documented in the schema including the next_page paging hint and per-page caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list call-center queues) and enumerates the returned fields (name, ring time, loops, prompts), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_call_center_agents and list_call_center_calls tools. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than spelled out.

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?

'Use the ids to filter call-center calls' gives a downstream purpose hint but not a when-to-use/when-to-avoid rule or a named alternative. The agent must infer that this tool is the lookup step before filtering calls by queue id.

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