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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing the returned content, including design-record fields ('the question it answers, the design choice and where it stops'), which is meaningful given there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource ('One build'). It is compact, though the trailing clause is elliptical enough to read as slightly cryptic rather than crisp.

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 single-resource read with full annotation coverage, complete schema, and a description sketching return content, an agent has what it needs to call the tool. Only the absence of any routing to sibling tools like list_builds is a minor gap.

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% with a single enum-constrained 'slug' parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no further parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (read 'one build') and resource, and distinguishes single-fetch from the sibling list_builds implicitly via 'One build'. The phrasing 'what it is and includes' is vague, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_builds or list_releases. Usage must be inferred from the singular 'One build' framing.

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