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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior by specifying it is a dry-run check and discloses the exact two-gate verdict ('deployment active + agent servable'). No contradictions, and the added detail goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Dry-run check') and includes the key outcome ('two-gate verdict') and safety property ('Read-only') with no filler.

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 simple, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information: it names the action, the outcome, and the read-only nature. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing more context.

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 parameter description in the schema is clear ('Id of the deployment to probe.'). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is 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?

Description states a specific verb ('probe', 'dry-run check') and resource ('this deployment'), and clarifies the purpose: 'would this deployment serve right now?'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that activate, create, or update deployments, and from probe_agent by focusing on deployment servability.

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 description provides clear context: this is a dry-run, read-only check to determine if a deployment would serve. It implies use before activation or as a diagnostic, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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