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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses the default version selection behavior and that code is excluded from the payload. It does not discuss size limits or pagination for potentially large blueprints, which is the one behavioral gap for a read tool returning substantial content.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: scoping the payload, explaining version defaulting, and prescribing the workflow. The key scoping fact is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description must signal return contents, and it does (blueprint, tests, last test run, no code). Safety is covered by annotations. It omits any note on payload size or shape for large blueprints, but an agent has enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, with both app (slug or id) and version fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a 3 is the baseline. The description reinforces the version default ('the version served unless you ask for another'), which adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema's terse 'an earlier version's blueprint and tests.'

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 names the exact resource contents returned (blueprint, tests, last test run) and scopes it against the obvious alternative by saying 'without its code', which implicitly separates it from get_app. The retrieval verb itself is only implied by the tool name, not stated in the prose, so it falls just short of a full verb+resource statement.

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?

'Read it before changing an app' gives a concrete when-to-use rule tied to a workflow with sibling mutations (update_app, publish_app, rollback_app). 'The version served unless you ask for another' sets expectations for the default case. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. list_versions, get_app) is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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