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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation, but doesn't specify response format, whether it can be polled, or any potential latency or failure modes. The phrase 'wait for their own commit to appear' hints at a polling pattern but is ambiguous. This is adequate for a simple health read, but leaves some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable usage hint without wasting words. Every part earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential function and a key use case. It doesn't explain the exact return payload, but that may be acceptable given the simplicity of the operation and lack of output schema. It's not missing any critical information an agent needs 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description doesn't mislead or conflict with 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('deployment health and build'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle CRUD, messaging, or other concerns. The added note about smoke tests waiting for their commit to appear here further differentiates it from related smoke-test tools, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives a concrete usage context: smoke tests should use this tool to wait for their own commit instead of racing edge propagation. This implies when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It's clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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