list_queue_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' and 'GET' are fully consistent with that safety profile. The description adds little beyond confirming the HTTP method; it does not disclose default behavior when all optional parameters are omitted or any response-scoping effects. No contradiction exists, so a mid score is appropriate.

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 compact and logically ordered: one-line action, endpoint, then a flat argument list. There is no filler or repetition beyond the minor redundancy of the per-argument 'Query parameter.' lines. It is appropriately sized for the information it carries, though that information is thin.

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 tool with four undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), the description leaves critical gaps: the meaning of each filter flag, how parameters combine, and what distinguishes this from list_queue. The output schema and annotations do cover return structure and safety, which prevents a score of 1, but an agent cannot confidently determine correct invocation or tool selection from this definition alone.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the four parameters, but it merely repeats each name followed by 'Query parameter.' This adds only the fact that they are passed via the query string, not what series_id filtering means, how episode_ids interacts with it, or what include_series and include_episode control in the response. The schema's bare type information (integer, array, boolean) is essentially all the agent has.

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 states a verb and resource ('Read QueueDetails') plus the concrete endpoint GET /api/v3/queue/details, which confirms it is a read operation on a specific path. However, 'QueueDetails' is essentially the tool name restated, and the description never explains what QueueDetails contains or how it differs from the closely named sibling list_queue. This is clear enough to identify the operation but vague on what the resource actually is.

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 offers zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a near-identical sibling named list_queue and related tools like list_queue_status, an agent has no basis to choose among them. No usage context, preconditions, or exclusion criteria are provided.

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