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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-obvious semantics: newest-first ordering, that state is the commit's runtime state now and 'unknown' means the cluster could not be read, and the crucial caveat that a succeeded build_status does not mean the commit is running. It also explains the conditional rollback object and that its states can still change – behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and ordering, and every sentence carries real information (field semantics, follow-up tool routing, rollback caveat). The opening field enumeration is partially redundant with the existing output schema, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 read-only listing tool with a single fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing semantic layer: what build_status vs state mean, and how the response changes during a rollback. Nothing needed to call or interpret it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents project_id at 100% coverage including the 'from list_projects' provenance hint. The description says the history is 'for a project' but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail about the id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('per-commit deployment history for a project') plus ordering ('newest first'), and enumerates the returned fields, which separates it from get_build_status, get_app_status, and get_runtime_logs at a glance.

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 follow-up actions ('Use the job_id with redeploy / stop_commit / start_commit / promote_commit / delete_commit') and points to get_rollback_status for rollback completion. It gives clear context but does not state when to prefer this over siblings like get_build_status or get_app_status.

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