listQueries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the description's added value is contextual: it reveals that results are query metadata (IDs/names) rather than issues, and that the output feeds listIssues. It does not mention pagination behavior for limit/offset, but the output schema and read-only annotations lower the burden.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the purpose/scope, the second clarifies the return type and the follow-up workflow. The key distinction from listIssues is 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return shape, and downstream use. The only real gap is that limit/offset remain semantically undocumented in both schema and prose, which is minor because they are optional and self-explanatory as pagination terms.

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 description provides no explanation of limit or offset. The parameter names weakly imply pagination controls, but the description neither confirms nor documents their meaning, defaults, or constraints, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Discover saved Redmine issue queries (stored filters)') and distinguishes it from sibling list tools by stating that it returns query IDs and names, not issue results. It also explicitly routes to listIssues for the follow-up call, making the tool's role 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?

It gives a clear when-to-use signal ('especially filters involving custom fields') and an explicit when-not/alternative: 'Returns query IDs and names rather than issue results; pass a selected queryId to listIssues.' An agent can decide between listQueries and listIssues without additional inference.

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