It is quite weak, isn't it, after the sublime first book of the Iliad (which is one of my favorites, really - it's really a flawless composition!)? Wait until you get to the catalogue of ships! (Interesting maybe for a ethnographer, but for someone reading the Iliad for fun: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...)
The point is, I think, to show how uncertain Agamemnon is as a leader, when his experiment fails miserably and Odysseus collects the points. Agamemnon isn't a coward or a weakling, but somehow insecure of his ego and unpredictable. The sort of weak leader you might encounter in real life actually. If I remember correctly, not long afterwards he'll be rebuking Odysseus for almost nothing, while it was he who saved the day here.
Il. 2 especially has been a target of a lot of analytic critique because of the incongruity of what Agamemnon says and does in this book. In the 19th century they thought it was full of interpolations; now that sort of thing is out of fashion. But M.L. West, probably the greatest Homerist alive, thinks the incongruities are there because the poet himself changed afterwards what he had written before, by literally cutting and pasting the papyrus with new sections of text. Since he didn't properly rewrite everything, he left some incongruities. I think this is a minority view, but I find it very seducing.