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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, the production-only filter, and that failed deploys carry a cause plus a recommended action — useful for deciding whether a follow-up call is needed.

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 sentences with no filler. The scope and ordering constraint come first, and the pagination instruction follows — exactly the order an agent needs to act on.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and its brief mention of commit/status/failure cause is a bonus rather than a gap-filler. Scope, ordering, and the full pagination loop are all covered for a three-parameter list 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the cursor contract ('nextCursor ... as cursor') without adding format or syntax detail, and says nothing about limit behavior.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the production deploys of a site') and pins the scope to production deploys, which no sibling tool covers — rollback_site and retry_site_publish act on deploys but do not enumerate them. It also states the ordering ('newest first'), so an agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

The pagination workflow is spelled out ('When older deploys exist, pass nextCursor back as cursor'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over related tools such as get_site or list_site_database_exports, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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