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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the cryptic note that preview and live readiness differ; it says nothing about polling, blocking behavior, or the fact that wait_for/wait_seconds can hold the call for up to 45 seconds.

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?

Two short clauses with no filler, so there is no wasted text. However, brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy; the telegraphic fragments don't front-load anything an agent can act on.

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?

A five-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain parameters, waiting semantics, and return shape. This says nothing on any of those, so the definition is not sufficient to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so all five parameters (include, build_id, wait_for, wait_seconds, workspace) are undocumented, and the description must compensate. Instead it only obliquely alludes to the preview/live split, without mapping it to the include enum or the wait_for values preview_ready and commerce_ready.

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 is a noun fragment ('Build/editor/revisions') with no verb, and only the annotation title ('Read build status') reveals that this is a read operation on a build. It gestures at the resource but never states what invoking the tool actually returns or does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, despite numerous plausible alternatives in the sibling list (builds_list, builds_open, preview_get, publish_get, builds_validate). The clause 'preview and live readiness differ' hints at a distinction but never tells the agent which tool or parameter choice follows from it.

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