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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are "recent" deployments and clarifies the deployment concept, but says nothing about ordering, recency window boundaries, or pagination/behavioral limits beyond what the schema already states.

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, zero redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded before the domain definition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation safety profile, the description provides enough to call it correctly. It only leaves ambiguous the meaning of "recent" relative to the count default, a minor gap given no output schema is needed here.

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 all three parameters (count with default/max, logId, includeLogMessageMetrics) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List recent deployments") plus a clear scope constraint ("for a log"), and even defines the domain term ("a deployment represents a release of the software"). It does not need sibling differentiation because there is no other deployments_* tool in the list, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description – fetch deployment history for a given log – but there is no explicit when-to-use phrasing, prerequisites (e.g., that logId must reference an existing log), or exclusion notes. With no competing alternative tool, implied guidance is adequate but unremarkable.

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