qm_sleep_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: discloses price/rail ($0.10 USDC on Base via x402), the authoritative 402 challenge, that it never pays, touches keys, or holds funds, and that resale is permitted. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then payment mechanics and safety posture. Dense and largely waste-free, though the resale/pricing sentences, while useful, add length that could be trimmed.

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 paid, two-phase tool with no output schema, the description covers the return path ('the data comes back in the tool result'), payment acquisition, and safety guarantees. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the two-phase 'payment' semantics. The description reinforces but adds little beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 deliverable (ordered track list + runtimes filling requested hours) and its source (sleep catalog). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like qm_sleep_recommend or qm_playlist_build.

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?

Explicitly lays out the two-phase call workflow: first call without 'payment' to get requirements, then re-call with the payload. However, it never contrasts this tool with the sleep-adjacent siblings (qm_sleep_recommend, qm_data_sleep_tip), so an agent must infer when this is the right choice over those.

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