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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable return-value context by naming the three counters returned, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for the response.

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 two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core action and its result are front-loaded, followed by the API endpoint as a helpful reference.

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?

Given the simple single-queue read operation, the absence of an output schema, and annotations that already cover read-only safety, the description is complete enough. It states the operation, the returned data, and the underlying API endpoint.

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 the single parameter 'queue' is fully documented as 'The queue's name or id.' The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single queue'), and enumerates the returned fields (concurrency limit, running count, queued count). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'trigger_list_queues' by specifying 'a single queue'.

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 phrase 'Fetch a single queue's...' gives clear context that the tool is for retrieving one specific queue when its identifier is known. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling 'trigger_list_queues' or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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