crm_get_sync_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuine semantics: inspected events are not applied and stay queued until CRM persistence is verified, so calling this has no side effect on business state. It does not describe ordering, volume, or what an empty queue looks like in the response.

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 tight sentences with the resource named first and the state caveat second; nothing is redundant. Minor deduction for jargon ('consumer', 'routing metadata') that is not glossed, though it is standard for a queue-inspection tool.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what the queue contains and why entries are still pending. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result at a high level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no argument semantics left ambiguous. The description correctly implies a full-queue inspection with no filtering dimension, matching the empty 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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and a specific resource (business-only updates queued for the crm_sync_business_queue consumer) plus the payload attribute examined (routing metadata). It is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like crm_queue_update or copilot_sync, though it never names them explicitly.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus crm_queue_update (which enqueues) or copilot_sync. The clause about events remaining queued until persistence is verified hints that this is a diagnostics/inspection tool, but the agent must infer that condition rather than being told it.

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