distributor_route_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a crucial behavioral trait. It also describes the data categories (draft orders, parked web orders, reasons, FFL expiry) that will be returned, giving the agent a clear expectation of the output contents without an output schema.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by two short, clear statements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the usage hint and read-only trait. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (only one param, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what is in the queue, why it exists, and the fact that it is read-only. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but that is minor for a queue-reader. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and how to call it.

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 only parameter is 'limit' (default 50), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, nor does it clarify how it affects results. Since coverage is low, the description should have compensated by explaining that the limit controls the number of queue entries returned, but it doesn't. The schema gives only type and default, which is minimal help.

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 specific verb ('read'), a specific resource (human confirmation queue), and precisely enumerates its contents: Draft Distributor Orders plus parked web orders with reasons and FFL expiry. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pending_orders by explicitly naming the queue's scope and purpose.

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 directive: 'This is the list to read before confirming anything.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of being the pre-confirmation queue implies it is distinct from action-oriented tools like dispose_order or cancel_order.

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