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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool returns current step, list of completed steps (~44 total), and completion status. It also clarifies that the read is on-demand and one-time, and notes the deployment timeline, which annotations do not cover.

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 three sentences long with no waste. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidance, then return information. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

Given a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, when to use, what it returns, and important context (deployment time, authoritative channels). There are no obvious gaps for an AI agent to misuse the tool.

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% and the description does not add additional meaning to the session_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 that this tool reads the current installation progress on demand. It specifies the verb 'Read' and the resource 'installation progress', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_and_deploy and retry_deploy by focusing on status checking.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: only when the user explicitly asks about deployment status, and never on a timer or in a polling loop. Provides context about deployment duration (8-14 minutes) and authoritative status channels, giving clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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