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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds the output surface: repository, branch, folder, live commit, and failure reason for the last push. For a simple status query this fully discloses the observable behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

One compact sentence with the key output items listed after a colon; no filler, no repeated title, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 required parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description still tells the agent exactly what information will be returned. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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% and the single optional parameter is already documented as 'Only this site. Leave out for all of them.' The description does not need to add further parameter detail, so it hits the baseline.

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 ('Show which sites are published from GitHub repositories') and enumerates the exact status fields returned. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like list_sites or list_deploys, which concern site metadata and deployment history rather than repo-publishing state.

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 clear context: use this when you need the repo-to-site publishing state, optionally filtered to one site. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but there is no misleading guidance.

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