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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it never publishes, never requests a workflow identity token, and never reruns an agent. This directly characterizes the absence of side effects and the token-handling boundary, which is valuable context for an agent deciding how to proceed.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that each carry weight: what is returned, that it is side-effect free, and where publication actually happens. Tight and well ordered, with only minor overlap between the read-only claim and the no-publish statement.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return content (publication status, verified repository metadata, check/comment URLs). The remaining gap is the two undocumented required parameters, but for a read-only tool the behavioral and return coverage is otherwise sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only implies batchId (via 'one retained batch's' and the CLI BATCH_ID reference). projectId and environmentId are required but receive no explanation of what they scope, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (one retained batch's GitHub App publication status and verified repository metadata, including check/comment URLs). Clearly distinct from generic siblings like firedrill_report or firedrill_batches, though it does not name a specific sibling tool to differentiate against.

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?

Explicitly gives both when-to-use (reading retained publication status) and when-not-to-use, directing the agent to run 'firedrill ci report BATCH_ID' in the authorized GitHub Actions job for actual publication. It also warns against pasting workflow identity tokens into MCP/model context, closing off the wrong path.

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