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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotence are covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination, auth requirements, or the effect of the required project_ref scope.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions. It front-loads the action but fails to earn its place by adding any useful detail.

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?

Given 8 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the required project_ref, what 'deployed' means in context, or any return shape, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0% for 8 parameters, including one required project_ref. The description does not mention any parameter, its format, or its role, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List deployed Edge Functions.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling write operations like deploy_edge_function and delete_edge_function. It lacks scope details (e.g., per-project) or any sibling reference, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent can infer that it is used to view deployed functions, but nothing directs it on when this is preferable to other listing or inspection tools.

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