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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar for additional behavioral detail is lower. The description adds value by explaining that returned files are 'the baseline that deploy_app will diff against' and warns against requesting dependency features, which are behavioral nuances not captured by 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?

The description is four sentences long and every sentence contributes: workflow sequence, return value, baseline relationship, and next steps/dependency caveat. It's front-loaded with the most critical call-order instruction, and there is no waste or repetition.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to call, what it returns, how the output is used (deploy_app diff baseline), and what to do next. It also ties the tool into the broader sibling workflow, making it contextually complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic guidance for the features parameter by instructing not to separately request dependency features, which is beyond what the schema enumerates. It also references app_type and frontend_template in the usage flow, reinforcing their role.

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?

Description clearly states what the tool does: 'Returns starter files, deploy contract, and next steps for a new app.' It also positions it within a workflow (after get_deploy_instructions, before get_appdeploy_sdk_reference) and defines its role as the baseline for deploy_app, making it distinct from 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?

Explicit sequencing given: 'Call get_deploy_instructions first. Then call this once you've decided app_type and frontend_template.' It also provides an exclusion rule: 'Do not separately request dependency features returned by a higher-level feature,' and directs when to call get_appdeploy_sdk_reference, offering clear when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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