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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses that secrets are shown by name only and never by value, and that logs are optional and scoped to one service. It stops short of describing pagination or truncation behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerates return contents, and ends with the sibling routing sentence. It is a dense single paragraph; a slight restructure could improve scannability, but there is minimal waste.

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 read-only tool with no output schema but with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned, the secret-name-only constraint, and the logs option. It could mention name/siteId selection but the schema already handles that.

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%, so all four parameters (logs, name, siteId, tail) are already documented in the input schema. The description only alludes to the optional logs behavior without adding format or default details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Show the site's container services') and enumerates exactly what is returned (per-service status, config, secret names, optional logs). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_site: 'Use get_app_status instead of get_site for anything about containers.'

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (get_site) and the condition that selects this tool ('anything about containers'). This is a textbook when-to-use vs alternative statement.

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