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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: rate limit of 1 deploy per 5 minutes, 429 with retry-seconds hint, registry restriction to registry.fiskmas.dev, per-plan resource caps, and the Free-tier single-container constraint.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact (caps, registry, rate limit, deploy rules) with no filler. The most decision-relevant constraints are front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers error behavior (429 retry hint), limits, and constraints well. It stops short of describing what a successful deploy returns or the container lifecycle, a minor gap for a 2-param mutation 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 0% with two undocumented params. The description constrains 'image' (must be a registry.fiskmas.dev image, pulled by digest) and implies 'project' behavior via the running/second-container rules, but never explicitly explains what each field means or whether they are required.

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 chain: pull an image by digest and run one container with the plan's cpu/memory caps. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_project or restart_project.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use restart_project for a transient crash - it does not count against the limit.' It also names the exact conditions where the tool is blocked (second container on Free) versus allowed (re-deploying a running project).

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