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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rich behavioral details: it returns job status/job_id/metadata without streaming logs, and explains the distinct LIVENESS timestamps (updated_at vs last_refresh_at) including their semantics and when last_refresh_at may be absent. This is substantial added context about response behavior and poll semantics.

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 well-organized with clear sections (MONITORING, REQUIRES/OPTIONAL, LIVENESS, TIP) and front-loads the core purpose. While the LIVENESS section is detailed, every sentence contributes valuable behavioral context. It is structured efficiently and not overly verbose.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how parameters are obtained, what the response contains, and caveats about timestamps. It also names the relevant sibling tool for logs. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance beyond the schema: it warns never to strip the ?token= suffix from session_id, explicitly states session_id comes from convoopen, and points to tfruns for discovering job_id values. This elevates understanding of parameter usage.

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 it checks Terraform deployment job status and explicitly distinguishes from siblings: 'Use tflogs to stream the actual deployment logs' and mentions tfruns for discovering job IDs. The verb 'check' and resource 'Terraform deployment' are specific, making the purpose 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this tool to quickly check if a deployment is running, completed, or failed'), exclusions ('without streaming logs' -> use tflogs), and prerequisites (REQUIRES session_id, OPTIONAL job_id with tfruns reference). This fully informs agent selection among siblings.

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