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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the key behavioral rule that PRs predating the latest successful production deploy are assumed shipped and surfaced via `assumed_deployed` rather than as false-positive undeployed entries, and that deploys ship the default branch. This kind of edge-case handling is exactly the context an agent needs.

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 definition and the deploy-lag signal, then closes with the important false-positive caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage context, and the non-obvious deploy-assumption behavior, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 lookback_days is fully documented in the schema (default 14, clamped 1-90). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List merged pull requests that have not yet shipped to production') plus scope ('grouped by repository'). By filtering on 'not yet shipped to production', it implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get-merged-pull-requests-tool and get-open-pull-requests-tool.

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 states the use case: 'Use this to spot work that is merged but stuck before deployment.' That gives clear context for when to reach for it. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., use get-merged-pull-requests-tool for all merged PRs), so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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