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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the 'INSPECTION' label, the return contents, and the prerequisite session_id format. The minor inconsistency between the description's types (apply/destroy) and the schema's types (apply/destroy/plan/drift) is a small transparency gap but not a contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and well-sectioned (INSPECTION, Returns, Use this, REQUIRES). It is front-loaded and every section serves a purpose, though there is slight redundancy between 'List all runs' and 'Returns ... for every run'.

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 simple list tool with one parameter, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, the description adequately covers return values, use cases, and the required session ID source. The omission of 'plan/drift' types from the description is a minor gap, but overall the tool is easy to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already thoroughly explains the session_id parameter, including the exact format and the token warning. The tool description only repeats 'REQUIRES: session_id from convoopen response' without adding new semantic information, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'List all Terraform deployment runs for a session' and specifies the returned data (job IDs, statuses, types, timestamps). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like tfdeploy or tfdestroy by focusing on history listing rather than execution.

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?

It states concrete use cases: 'see deployment history, find job IDs for log inspection, or check which deployments succeeded or failed.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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