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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the derived 'phase' state machine (generating/deploying/generated/deployed/failed) and the counterintuitive container semantics ('empty container list ... means generated but not yet deployed, not failed'). This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 purpose, then the no-arg behavior, then parameter semantics, then a bulleted phase glossary. Long but nearly every sentence earns its place; the phase bullets are dense but necessary given no output schema. Slightly verbose in the closing deploy_application paragraph.

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 tool with no output schema and a non-trivial derived-state return shape, the description fully specifies what comes back (phases, builds, container lists) and how to interpret edge cases. An agent can call and interpret it correctly without further context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'environment' is explained as the switch that distinguishes 'generated' from 'deployed', and 'stack' is tied to the deploy_application deployment_id. It doesn't elaborate on limit/context/conversation_id, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Report where deployments ... stand') and immediately frames it as the reconciliation tool for interrupted/timed-out deploy_application calls. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling deploy_application (write) and status siblings like get_jobs/get_logs.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when a deploy_application call was interrupted, timed out, or its response was lost'), how to escalate to the alternative (call deploy_application with stack_id), and an explicit prohibition ('Never resubmit a deployment from scratch after a timeout; check here first').

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