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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact returned status values and the fact that a failed deploy includes the end of the build log. This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return values, and failure behavior. There is no fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema available, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the special failed case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and the only parameter, project_name, is already documented as 'Name of the project.' The description does not add additional format, source, or validation detail, so it stays at the schema-driven baseline.

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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a project's production deploy'), then lists the concrete outputs: status, public URL, and build errors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools like deploy or redeploy and from dev-log tools.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to know whether a production deployment is building, live, or failed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_dev_logs or redeploy. There is no exclusion or conditional routing, so guidance is only implied.

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