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

readOnlyHint=true in annotations already establishes this as a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds one useful behavioral detail ('ordered items'), implying return ordering, but says nothing about pagination, queue size limits, or what happens for an empty queue. Some added value over the annotation, but thin.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the REST endpoint mapping. The endpoint reference is marginally redundant with the tool name but useful for agents cross-referencing API docs.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage, so little is required. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what a queue item looks like (id, position, media reference), which is the main missing piece for an agent consuming the result.

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%, with the enum values and the stream UUID fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or default information 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the ordered items of one of a stream's media queues', which is clearly distinct from the sibling write operations (add_to_stream_queue, remove_from_stream_queue, reorder_stream_queue). It does not explicitly contrast against read siblings like get_stream or list_media, but the scope is 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the endpoint mapping ('Mirrors GET /api/v1/streams/{stream}/queues/{type}'), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_stream or list_media, and no preconditions or exclusions. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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