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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are 'non-redundant' (deduplication guarantee) and are bounded per class rather than as an undifferentiated list. It does not discuss ordering or pagination, but for a read-only queue tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the use condition before the sibling routing, and the operational bound is stated last. Every clause carries routing or behavioral information.

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?

The tool is a read-only, idempotent query with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema. The description supplies the item classes it returns, the sibling routing, and the result bound, which is everything an agent needs to select and size the call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks by clarifying that the limit applies 'per class' rather than to the total result set, which materially changes how an agent sizes the request. The default and maximum values themselves are already in the schema.

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 names a specific action ('selecting a bounded mixed queue') and enumerates the resource types it returns (unanswered questions, unfinished tasks, disputes, low-diversity trails), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings. The opener 'transparent non-redundant work cues' is jargon that slightly muddies the object of the verb, keeping it 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?

It states when to use this tool and then explicitly routes to four alternatives with the condition that selects each: commons_gaps for low-diversity/caller-absent trails, commons_disputes for contested targets, commons_negative_results/commons_blocked_actions before revisiting failed or stopped paths. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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