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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral note is that the read is scoped to "privacy-filtered project metadata," which is a genuine but thin addition — it does not say what the status represents or what is filtered out.

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?

One sentence is appropriately short, but it is not front-loaded cleanly — "Read hosted get github app status" wastes words and obscures the action. There is no filler to cut, but the phrasing is muddled rather than efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears some burden for explaining what comes back, and "github app status" is never unpacked — an agent cannot tell whether it receives an install state, permissions, webhook health, or an auth token. Annotations cover the safety dimension, so the gap is scoped to return semantics and param relationships rather than to behavior, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 the documented parameters carry their own semantics and the baseline is 3 per the rules. The description adds nothing about the relationship between projectId (required) and the optional sessionId/executionId, and notably does not correct the schema's copy-paste defect where sessionId and executionId are both described as "Owned project ID returned by list_linked_projects."

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 phrase "get github app status" names a verb and resource, but it is wrapped in a garbled construction ("Read hosted get github app status") that reads as a stitched-together pipeline fragment rather than a clear statement of purpose. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other status readers in the sibling list (get_project_status, get_agent_execution_status, get_project_sync_status).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With roughly a dozen status/read tools available, the absence of any routing guidance leaves selection entirely to inference.

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