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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, time-range, pagination, or volume characteristics for what could be a long history list.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with an overlapping sibling.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. What is missing for a low-complexity list tool is routing context against deployment_list/deployment_get_state and any hint about ordering or result size.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it only implies that the parameter identifies an API ('for an API'). The parameter name apiId is self-describing and there is only one required param, so this is minimally adequate rather than informative.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List deployment history') scoped to an API, so an agent knows it retrieves historical deployment records rather than current state. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like deployment_list or deployment_get_state, which plausibly overlap with this surface.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the API must already exist), and no indication of when to prefer deployment_list or deployment_get_state instead. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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