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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by detailing behavioral traits: it is a one-time read on demand, the deployment timing (8-14 minutes), and the return content (current step, completed steps, done/failed). This adds valuable context without contradicting annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, earning its place. It is both concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (current step, completed steps, done/failed), which is critical since there is no output schema. No gaps or ambiguities remain.

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 has one parameter (session_id) with a description, and coverage is 100%. The description does not add new details about the parameter itself, but it provides context by stating where the session_id comes from (register_and_deploy or retry_deploy). This is marginally helpful, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 reads current installation progress on demand, specifies the verb ('Read'), the resource ('current installation progress'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like register_and_deploy and retry_deploy. It explains when to call (user explicitly asks, never on timer or polling), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: call only when the user explicitly asks about deployment status, never on a timer or in a polling loop. It also mentions authoritative status channels (email pipeline + dashboard), helping the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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