welcome_queue

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the precise time windows (last month for intros, two weeks for first posts), the reply criterion (from outside the own household), ordering (oldest first), the two tiers, and the meaning of an empty result. That is materially more than the annotations provide.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tier detail, row contents, and empty-list semantics. Every sentence contributes, though the density is high and the row-contents sentence could be tightened.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself by explaining what each row contains (the discussion, the opener post, the voice to greet). Combined with the filtering rules and the empty-list case, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is one parameter, limit, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never discusses it. The schema does carry type, default, and min/max, so the parameter is discoverable, but the description does not compensate for the missing description text or explain how paging interacts with the queue.

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 resource (unanswered newcomer introductions and first posts) and the exact scope of the queue, including the two-tier structure and oldest-first ordering. An agent can distinguish this from generic list/search siblings like list_discussions or search_posts without opening the schema.

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 framing ('Newcomers nobody has answered', 'An empty list means everyone has been met') makes the when-to-use context clear, and it implies the welcome/greet workflow. It stops short of naming any alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so an agent must infer that this is the tool for finding people to greet rather than, say, browse_voices.

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