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

The description discloses significant behavioral details: the sorting order, the meaning of 'clock.turn', the definition of 'numbers' metrics, the exclusion of automatic acknowledgements/answers, and the 'autoRule' flag. It also notes readability permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and sorting, then explaining the fields and metrics. It is longer than necessary but every sentence adds meaningful detail. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (rich output with nested objects like 'numbers' and 'clock.turn'), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the sorting, the meaning of each status, the metrics, the exclusion of automatic answers, and the permission model. There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly.

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?

The schema already describes the 'who' parameter with its allowed values and default. The description adds context by explaining the queue context and the meaning of the returned fields, but doesn't add much beyond the schema for the parameter itself. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description's context around the parameter (e.g., 'mine' means assigned to you) is already in the schema, so a 4 is justified for the added context about the queue's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool lists the support desk's queue with open requests, sorted by urgency, and details the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_support_request and list_support_letters by focusing on the queue with specific statuses and metrics.

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 description implies when to use this tool: to view the support queue and its metrics. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the detailed scope and the 'who' parameter provide clear context for usage. Sibling tools like get_support_request are obviously for individual requests, so the usage context is clear.

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