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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read/list operation, specifies the output fields (timestamps, environments, SHAs, deployment types), and mentions paginated format. It does not disclose potential limitations like ordering or access requirements, but these are not critical for a straightforward read tool.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or filler content; each sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with fully described parameters. Although there is no output schema, the description covers the key return fields and pagination format, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it only loosely references entity and pagination.

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 states the tool lists all deployments for a specific catalog entity, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling get* tools by focusing on deployment history rather than entity details or custom data.

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 description implies the use case (when you need deployment history for an entity) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The pagination parameters suggest intended usage, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is given.

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