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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the listing surfaces (concurrency limits and current depth), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering despite exposing a pageSize parameter.

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?

One front-loaded sentence gives purpose, payload, and usage cue; the endpoint reference is short. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description says enough to call it correctly. The only gap is paging/return ordering behavior, which is minor here.

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 pageSize parameter is fully documented there with a 1-100 range. The description adds no extra meaning about paging, so the 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 task queues') and goes further by naming the returned fields (concurrency limits, current depth). The plural 'queues' plus these fields naturally separates it from the singular sibling trigger_get_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?

'where you look when work is backing up' gives a clear situational trigger for reaching for this tool rather than a single-queue lookup. It does not explicitly name trigger_get_queue as the alternative for drilling into one queue, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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