miinta.sales_queue.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It states the purpose (return a payload) and mentions enrichment, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it disclose error behavior, rate limits, or the impact of invalid filters. The mention of filter discovery hints at dependencies, but significant gaps remain.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states what the tool does with specific output details, the second gives a practical usage pointer. Every word adds value, no repetition, and the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a complex schema with nested objects and 5 parameters, yet there is no output schema. The description names the enriched fields but doesn't explain the queue structure, how filters map to sections, or the behavior of options like limits and timezone. It provides a high-level overview but lacks sufficient detail for an agent to confidently invoke it without further exploration.

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 only 20%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters. It correctly mentions filters by ID or name, but this is already in the schema. It does not explain 'limits', 'timezone', 'include_people_orgs', or 'now', which are critical for using the tool correctly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource: a structured 'morning queue' payload. It details the mechanism (three Pipedrive filters) and enrichment fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage filters (list, delete, create). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly tells users to use miinta.filters.list to discover available filter names, which is a clear prerequisite and points to the correct sibling tool for setup. It implies that filters must exist, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other queue-related needs. This is helpful but not exhaustive.

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