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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: rows are identical to the week page, and each row carries the publisher's own source URL. It stops short of describing result size, ordering, or what an empty week returns.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the scope-defining clause is front-loaded. The second sentence on source URLs is marginally supplementary but still earns its place by telling the agent what each row contains.

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 single-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, full safety annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the data source and the per-row payload, with only result ordering and empty-result behavior left unspecified.

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%: the single 'week' parameter is typed as a string with pattern ^\d{4}-W\d{2}$ and an example (2026-W39). The description adds no further syntax, format edge cases (e.g. out-of-range weeks), or invalid-input behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (every row of The Deploy Log) and scope (one ISO week), so an agent knows it returns a week-bounded slice rather than a search or a recent feed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings recent_deployments or search_deployments, so the differentiation is inferred from the 'one ISO week' scoping rather than stated.

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 and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives, despite the near-identical recent_deployments and search_deployments sitting next to it. The phrase 'the same rows as its week page' hints at parity with a UI view but gives the agent no rule for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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