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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'treat deployed_and_testing status as non-final, always inspect QA/errors'. This warns the agent about a non-intuitive state and explains the need for deeper inspection. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence covers when to use and what it returns; the second covers important caveats. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with usage context.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return content (deployment status, e2e test status, QA snapshot, error logs) and provides behavioral caveats (non-final status, checking QA/errors, fallback to get_e2e_qa_run_details). This is complete for a read-only status tool given the rich annotations and schema.

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 100%, with each parameter (app_id, limit, since) having clear descriptions including defaults and filters. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns deployment status, e2e test status, QA snapshot, and frontend/backend error logs'. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming deploy_app and get_e2e_qa_run_details as related but different tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when deploy_app returns, when checking deployment status, or when the app has errors or is not working as expected.' It also provides an alternative: 'call get_e2e_qa_run_details if e2e tests fail.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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