sqs_receive_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and no idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase "up to one" usefully signals that a call may return zero messages, but the description omits visibility-timeout behavior, whether receipt hides the message from others, and the need to delete it — meaningful context for a non-read-only operation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the quantifier appears where it matters. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves no room for the operational caveats noted above.

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 receive/consume operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain return shape (message body? empty result?) and consumption semantics. Those essentials are missing, leaving the caller with an underspecified contract.

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 0% and the single required parameter (queue) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not clarify whether queue is a name, URL, or ARN, nor any format constraints, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Receive ... SQS message") and quantifies the scope ("up to one"), which distinguishes it from sqs_send_message and sqs_delete_message. It does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast behavior, but the action 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus sibling tools, no polling loop advice, and no note about what to do with a received message (e.g., that a separate delete call is required). The only implicit cue is "up to one," which hints at single-message retrieval but leaves caller strategy unstated.

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