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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the '[scope: read]' tag largely repeats structured data. The one genuine addition is the 'last 20' truncation, which tells the agent the result set is capped, but it does not say whether more history is retrievable or in what order records are returned.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the cap before anything else. The '[scope: read]' suffix is redundant with the annotations and costs a few tokens for no new information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is what happens past 20 deploys: nothing tells the agent whether the list is exhaustive, truncated, or padded with a way to page further.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that project_id comes from cloudhosting_list_projects. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 a specific resource and scope: deploy history for a given project, capped at the last 20 entries. That clearly separates it from cloudhosting_deploy_project (which triggers a deploy) and cloudhosting_preview_deploy, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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 usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'call this to inspect past deploys of a project.' There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of an alternative for older or fuller history, and no note about when this call is unnecessary.

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