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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, yet the description still adds real value: source code is never returned, and the data is recorded state that does not probe the route. That last clause prevents an agent from misreading the result as a live health check. It omits error/not-found behavior for unpermitted projects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the permission scope, returned payload, and the source-code exclusion all earn their place. The colon-chained list is slightly dense but remains scannable.

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 carries the return shape by enumerating what is included and explicitly what is not (source code), plus the rollback verdict and targetDeploymentId. Missing only failure-mode or permission-error behavior for a tool gated on permitted projects.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It implies projectId must be a project the caller is permitted to access, and that functionId selects the single function, but it adds no ID format or scoping detail beyond what the regex patterns in the schema already enforce.

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 and resource ('Read one Function of a permitted project') and enumerates the fields returned: definition, status, route/product URL, deployments, and rollback eligibility. This clearly distinguishes it from the list-style siblings such as eurobase_list_functions and from eurobase_get_deployment.

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?

Signals the read-one-function context and explicitly cross-references eurobase_rollback_function as the tool this output informs, which helps an agent choose the next call. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. use eurobase_list_functions to enumerate).

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