consignment_queue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full safety burden and clearly states 'Read-only,' which is the critical behavioral trait. It also describes the queue's scope, content, and independence from pending_orders. It does not disclose pagination or ordering, but for a read-only list tool the essential behavior is communicated.

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 dense but front-loaded with the tool's purpose and scope, then adds the distinguishing sibling note, parameter behavior, and read-only status. The first sentence is long and uses domain jargon like 'line pills' and 'action gating,' but every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations; the description covers scope, content, parameter behavior, and read-only status. It gives a reasonable picture of the returned card data, though it omits details like pagination and exact response shape.

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?

The input schema provides only a bare boolean with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so directly: 'include_closed=true also returns Closed/Cancelled history.' This fully explains the only parameter's meaning and effect.

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 and verb: the outbound-consignment "At Dealer" queue for unfinished Consignment Out records (Draft/Shipped). It enumerates the card contents and explicitly differentiates itself from pending_orders, making the tool's identity unambiguous among many consignment siblings.

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 explicitly contrasts the queue with pending_orders and notes that pending_orders excludes consignment invoices, giving an agent a concrete selection signal. It also explains that include_closed=true extends the result to Closed/Cancelled history. It does not enumerate all alternative consignment tools, but the key distinction is covered.

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