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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by disclosing what the summary contains and that it can be scoped to a tenant. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

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 one focused, front-loaded sentence that names the resource, lists the summary metrics, and states the only scoping option. There is no filler, redundancy, or buried caveat.

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 simple one-parameter read with rich annotations, the description covers the essential return content and the optional tenant scope. There is no output schema, so a fully explicit response shape would help, but the enumerated metrics close most of that gap.

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% for the single optional tenant_slug parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description only repeats 'Optionally scoped to a tenant' without adding format, defaults, or behavior beyond 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 verb and resource ('Read the FLOCORE work-queue summary') and enumerates concrete metrics: status, depth, oldest-queued age, awaiting-human, dead-letter, stuck. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like flocore_list_tickets or flocore_orch_board.

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 use case is implied: an agent would call this when it needs an aggregate work-queue summary rather than individual ticket details. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving routing to siblings like flocore_list_tickets to inference.

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