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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the lifecycle enumeration (queued, generating, reviewing, waiting for the owner, applied, failed) and the fact that a verdict and published address may accompany it. That tells an agent what states to expect and interpret, though it says nothing about permissions, latency, or staleness of the status.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded and the build states inline rather than as a separate list. Dense but with no filler; every clause maps to something the tool actually reports.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does: current build phase, review verdict, and live URL when published. For a one-parameter read-only status tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%: project_id is documented in the schema itself, including where to obtain it (create_app or list_apps). The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

A specific verb ("Show") plus a clearly bounded resource: the standing of one app on the account, decomposed into latest build state, review verdict, and live address. This is plainly distinct from create_app, list_apps, and check_handle, and the enumerated build phases make the scope of "status" unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to poll after create_app or to inspect a single app from list_apps. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the siblings by name, and no note on whether it should be called repeatedly to track build progress.

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