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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the deployment-correlation rule: PRs merged before the last successful production deploy are treated as shipped and surfaced via `assumed_deployed` rather than as false positives. That is exactly the kind of subtle semantics an agent could otherwise misread as a data bug.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the use case, with no filler. Slightly dense in the final sentence, but every clause carries information about output shape or the assumed-deployed rule.

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 documentation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the payload (wait time per PR, last deploy per repo). With one optional, fully described parameter, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the 1–90 clamp and default of 14 documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about lookback_days, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 the grouping dimension ('grouped by repository'), which immediately separates it from the broader get-merged-pull-requests-tool in the sibling list. An agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this to spot work that is merged but stuck before deployment' gives a clear selection trigger. It does not explicitly name get-merged-pull-requests-tool as the alternative for a full merged-PR listing, so the when-not side is only implied.

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