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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses result ordering (newest first) and the meaning of the 'live' field, but says nothing about pagination, how 'limit' is applied or defaulted, or what happens when a project has no deploys.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the supplementary 'live: true' detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and one result field. It is still missing limit/pagination semantics and any indication of what a deployment record otherwise contains, which matters given 0% schema coverage and no annotations.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented. 'projectId' is only obliquely implied by 'a project's deployments', and 'limit' (integer, 1-50) is entirely absent from the description, leaving an agent to guess at its meaning and defaults.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List a project's deployments') and adds ordering ('newest first'), so an agent can separate it from the singular status tools like codebase_get_deploy_status. It never explicitly names a sibling or an exclusion, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the tool for browsing deployment history, and the 'live: true' note hints at how to identify the currently-served deploy. There is no statement of when to prefer this over codebase_get_deploy_status or codebase_rollback_deploy.

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