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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond: it defines the ownedMove state machine (MOVING/MOVED/FAILED/REFUSED), states that tier/status are unchanged during a move, gives ~2 minute timing, clarifies that a redeploy 'never orders a second server', and calls out the auth requirement.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence explains a specific result field or remediation. It is dense and runs long for a status tool, but nearly every sentence carries actionable meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: recentErrors, qa.status PASSED/FAILED, qa.findings, and all ownedMove states are defined. An agent has everything needed to interpret the result and act on it.

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% with only two params (appId, sessionKey), both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies; its rich content concerns return values, not inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get an Osir app's current status, live URL, and health', with the plain-language gloss 'is my app working?'. It also enumerates the distinct sub-results (qa, ownedMove) so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 gives clear usage context ('is my app working?') and explains the follow-up action for BUILD_FAILED (fix source and redeploy) and for ownedMove FAILED/REFUSED (retry via osirAppDeployToVps, or fix the VPS first). It never names a competing sibling such as osirAppLogs, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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