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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the plan constraint (turbopress AI Launch) and a retention policy (last 10 published releases kept, unpublished deploys purged after 24 hours). It does not describe pagination or output format, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, followed by the integration point and retention rules. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, though the density of constraints makes it slightly heavier than necessary for a one-parameter list tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden and does so well: it names the fields returned (timestamp, status, live release) and the deploy_id. Combined with the retention policy and the rollback linkage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% with a single required 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description reinforces the domain scope and plan tier but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (listet) and resource (Releases/Deploys einer Website) and enumerates the returned fields (Zeitpunkt, Status, live status). It also differentiates itself among the deploy_* siblings by naming its consumer: 'Liefert die deploy_id, die deploy_rollback braucht.'

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?

Gives clear context for use — retrieve the deploy_id required by deploy_rollback — which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternative listing tools, so it is not a full 5.

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