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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it returns only non-failed deployments, may build one when needed, and has special concurrency handling when a build is already in progress. With annotations already declaring the non-readonly, non-destructive, non-open-world profile, this is useful added context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the concurrency caveat. There is no wasted language.

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 mutating build-ensure operation with no output schema, the description covers the core return-or-build behavior and the concurrent-build caveat. It still leaves important gaps around what the returned deployment contains, how build failures are surfaced, and how target values map to head versus published state.

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%, and the description does not explain the target enum values 'head' and 'published' or the meaning of websiteId. The phrase 'selected version' hints at target but does not give enough semantic detail to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 and resource: it returns an existing non-failed deployment for the selected version or builds one. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from a status-checking flow by saying to poll status when another request is already building, though it does not name the sibling tool explicitly.

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 one useful usage condition: poll status when another request is already building. However, it does not clearly state when to use this tool versus websiteSourceCode_deployment_status, head_publish, or head_check, leaving most alternative selection to inference.

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