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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main added value is the return-shape disclosure: items are ordered, each carries one of six named states, a booked or projected slot, and attribution status. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It does not address whether items are paginated or truncated for large queues, which is the one meaningful 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, front-loaded with what is returned, with the state enumeration and endpoint provenance packed in compactly. Nothing is wasted; the '[read-only]' tag is mildly redundant with the annotations but costs almost nothing.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so at the field-group level (items, order, state, slot, attribution). Queue-level attributes (name, brand owner) and any item-count limits are unmentioned, which keeps it from a 5, but it is complete enough to 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 50%: brandId has a thorough description of personal/brand-bound key semantics, while id is undocumented. The description partially compensates by citing the {id} path, making it clear the required parameter is a queue identifier, but it says nothing about format, where to obtain the id, or the brand-scoping interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('A queue and its items in order') and even enumerates the per-item fields (state, booked or projected slot, attribution status), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also identifies the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v2/queues/{id}), reinforcing the singular-resource scope. It stops short of naming list_queues as the alternative, so the sibling distinction is only implied.

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 inferable from the singular resource plus the {id} path template: fetch one queue when you already have its id. There is no explicit 'use list_queues to discover ids' or 'use get_queue before reorder_queue_items' guidance, and no statement of preconditions. Adequate but leaves the agent to reason about when this beats the list sibling.

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