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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It goes beyond a simple write operation by disclosing the key non-obvious side effect: deployments are auto-correlated with incidents created within 20 minutes. This is valuable behavioral context. It omits other details like idempotency or overwrite behavior, but the disclosed correlation is significant.

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 sentences: the first states the action, the second adds valuable context. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose, the benefit, and a key behavior (incident correlation). The only gap is not specifying the return value, but that is not critical for a recording action.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents all properties clearly. No compensation needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Record' with a clear resource ('deployment event') and target scope. There is no other deployment-related tool among siblings, making this tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 states it is 'useful for tracking releases and root-cause analysis,' implying when to use it, and the mention of incident correlation gives practical context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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