Check the review queue's response times

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful operational context: the underlying GET endpoint, required scopes (review_queue:read, luca:read), full_content data sensitivity, and that no idempotency key is needed.

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 metric and its interpretation in the first two sentences, followed by a compact operational metadata block. Nothing is wasted, though the metadata block is dense enough to slightly dilute the read.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, annotations carry the safety profile, and the description supplies endpoint, scopes, sensitivity, and workspace-override behavior. An agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100% and both params are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful detail that these override the default workspace configured by the environment, which the schema's bare 'Optional Luca workspace id override' does not convey.

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 precise verb and resource: reading median first-response time and its daily trend, with the outcome it informs (whether the queue is cleared fast enough). This clearly separates it from siblings like luca_review_queue_list or luca_review_queue_explain, but it never names or contrasts with any of them explicitly.

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 implies when you'd want the metric ('Tells you whether the queue is being cleared fast enough') and notes how to target a workspace, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions relative to the many review_queue siblings.

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