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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the default window (7 days) and that failed deploys are surfaced per person plus sorting, but doesn't discuss rate limits or return format details. Adequate but not rich.

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-loads the core purpose and then gives an example and usage question. Slightly verbose with the example and last sentence, but every sentence adds value.

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 there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still summarizes what is returned (deploy count, failed count, repositories, team totals). For a single-parameter read-only tool with annotations and output schema, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'days' parameter including its default and clamping. The description repeats the default (7 days) but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (list), resource (production deployments by person), and scope (recent window). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-dora-metrics-tool and get-person-activity-tool by focusing on who triggered deploys and failure counts, with a concrete example output.

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 provides the question it answers ('who has deployed to production this week and how much'), giving clear usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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