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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive nature, and the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing.' It adds material behavioral context, including the need for an API key and that the tool gathers connected cloud/git accounts, existing projects, and next steps with links. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main activity in the first few words, then provides the key informational steps and important caveats. The long central sentence is dense but each clause adds useful information, and the 'Changes nothing' and API key requirements are clear separate statements. It could be slightly more structured with breaks, but it avoids boilerplate.

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 appropriately names most relevant output components: connected accounts, existing projects, next steps, and links. It also gives prerequisite context such as the API key. Exact response formatting and round-trip behavior are not specified, but the tool is conceptually simple enough that the described contents are reasonably complete for call selection and high-level use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add important extra guidance around how `repo` or `cloud` should be used, though it does mention accounts at a high level. Baseline 3 applies because the schema is already self-explanatory.

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 a single purpose: plan a deploy without executing it. It names the resource (repository), the user's accounts/project, and the expected informational output, and it distinguishes itself from check_repo and the other siblings by emphasizing planning rather than deployment or changes.

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 use case is clear: use this when the user wants deployment planning for a repo, with checks and next steps, and it needs an API key. It also implicitly differentiates itself from check_repo by saying it checks the repo 'like check_repo' then goes further with plans, links, and account/project context. It does not explicitly say 'don't use this for actual deployment,' but 'Plans' and 'Changes nothing' make that evident.

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