search_queues

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

The description explains that the tool performs a read-only search and returns paginated results with specific fields. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or edge cases like empty results. Since no annotations provide behavioral hints, the description carries the full burden, and while adequate, it lacks depth on potential side effects or constraints.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds value, though minor redundancies with the schema could be trimmed. Overall, it is clear and efficient.

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 is provided, so the description must detail return values. It does so thoroughly, listing the fields and pagination metadata. The tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including wildcard usage and default values. The description repeats this information without adding substantial new meaning. Therefore, per the rule that high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, the score 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 clearly states the tool searches for routing queues by name with wildcard support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like conversation_sentiment or oauth_clients, which deal with different domains. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unequivocal.

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 outlines use cases such as finding queue IDs, checking configurations, and listing queues. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though the sibling tools are sufficiently different to avoid ambiguity.

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