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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the call asks no human and by listing what the plain-line output covers: version, required approvals, and broken references.

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, front-loaded with the key output description and followed by the important non-interactive behavior. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes new information.

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 appropriately explains what the call reports: version, approvals, and broken references. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying that the review is scoped to the given project and environment, but the schema covers those inputs.

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%, so project and environment are already documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly conveys that this is a preview of what the next deploy would apply, including version, required approvals, and broken references. It is specific about the resource and output, but it does not explicitly name a verb like 'preview' or directly distinguish itself from the sibling deploy tools.

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?

The phrase 'What the next deploy applies' implies this should be used before a deploy, and 'This call asks no human' hints that it is non-interactive. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of deploy, deployment_start, or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions.

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