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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'locked revision' precondition, which is useful, but omits what is returned, whether the lock must exist first, and any auth/rate-limit behavior; 'Input is empty' also conflicts with the required workspaceId parameter.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is terse but its ambiguity with respect to the required workspaceId slightly weakens it.

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 burden of explaining what 'installation values' look like, and it does not. For a tool whose output is the whole point, an agent cannot anticipate the return shape or how to use it alongside the lock/verify siblings.

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 75%, with workspaceId, outputFormat and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Input is empty' may intend to clarify that the nested input object takes no fields, but it adds no syntax or format detail and reads as misleading about the required parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('installation values'), and the name anchors it as installation instructions. The qualifier 'for the locked revision' signals a state dependency that helps distinguish it from the verify_* and status siblings, though it never names an alternative 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing versus siblings such as verify_sulvo_placement_installation or get_sulvo_activation_smoke_status. 'Input is empty' is the only usage hint, and it is ambiguous because the schema actually requires workspaceId.

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