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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the service is unauthenticated, free, has no operator runtime, and that vault/courier/operator fields are False/empty by construction. It also names the load-bearing return field, though it omits side-effect/rate-limit framing beyond the implied read-only nature.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose well, but the following paragraphs are dense and somewhat verbose for a no-parameter status collector, with implementation detail (backticked field names, envelope provenance) that partly duplicates what the output schema conveys.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't enumerate return values, and it covers purpose, usage context, auth posture, and the key field. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around output interpretation beyond the highlighted sha.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Report the running build' — and clarifies it delegates to the canonical build_service_status envelope, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling collector_status, which is the main gap keeping it from a 5.

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?

It gives a clear use context: verifying that a redeploy landed the merged sha, as read by the post-merge deploy-verify probe. That tells the agent when this tool is the right one, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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