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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds important behavioral facts: it 'Needs an API key' and 'Never charges anything,' while also stating that the actual payment happens later via the returned link. 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 three sentences and covers the action, options, outcome, and prerequisite without repeating the title. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides practical details. It is efficient, though slightly dense.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description explains the return content: price, delivery promise, and a link to finish and pay. It also discloses the side effect of telling the team and the API key requirement. It does not cover failure modes, but for a request-submission tool this is acceptable.

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 schema documents note and repo but leaves offer as a bare enum. The description compensates by defining launch as putting an app online in the user's own cloud account and move as moving from another host like Heroku. This adds real meaning to the most important 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Asks The Deployer's team to do it for the user.' It then defines the two offer modes, 'launch' and 'move', giving concrete meaning that matches the offer enum. This clearly distinguishes the tool from self-service siblings like plan_deploy and redeploy.

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 description makes the delegation scenario explicit and explains what the team will do for the user, implying this tool is for when the user wants human help rather than automated action. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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