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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it in plain language ('Changes nothing') and, more valuably, discloses what the response contains (repo check, accounts, existing project, remaining steps, links) — important since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting anything about open-world/auth prerequisites beyond 'the user's account'.

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 sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, whose long clause is a tight enumeration of returned contents rather than filler. The closing 'Changes nothing' is a deliberate, high-value safety signal.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: what the plan contains and that it mutates nothing. It could be slightly stronger by stating prerequisites (connected accounts) or how it differs from check_repo, but an agent has enough to call it 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 both parameters (repo with owner/name-or-URL semantics, optional cloud enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or scoping detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Plans') and resource ('deploying a repository') and enumerates exactly what the plan assembles: repo check, connected cloud/git accounts, existing project, remaining steps. That enumeration implicitly separates it from check_repo (repo check only) and launch/redeploy (which act), though no sibling is named 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?

The phrase 'the steps left' and 'Changes nothing' imply this is a pre-flight preview to run before launch, but the description never says 'use this before launch' or when to prefer it over check_repo or status. Usage must be inferred from the enumerated contents rather than stated.

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