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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds the useful fallback behavior (latest attempt) and that output is per-step, but that fallback is also in the schema and the return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

One tightly packed sentence; the resource and key come first, the purpose clause second, and the default behavior last. Nothing wasted.

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 a full schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only a pointer to sibling log/status tools would improve it further.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the attempt_id default and the list_deployments provenance for job_id. The description only restates these, adding no format or syntax detail.

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 resource ('per-step build log output for a deployment') and the key ('by job_id'), plus the diagnostic intent. It implicitly separates itself from get_runtime_logs by saying 'build logs', but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'used to diagnose a failed build' gives a clear use context and the default-to-latest-attempt behavior tells the agent the common-case invocation. No explicit when-not or alternative (e.g., get_runtime_logs for runtime issues, get_build_status) is offered.

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