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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'not separately rate-limited' (rate-limit behavior) and the full return contract including the null case for shared-pool organizations. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, safety/rate-limit note, polling guidance, and return format. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource. No fluff or repetition beyond acceptable reinforcement of the read-only nature.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape (fields and null condition) and the intended polling pattern. For a parameterless read-only fetch, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs, and it doesn't introduce any confusion.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the current deployment for the active organization, if one exists.' It clearly identifies scope (active organization) and the nullable result. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like create_deployment by positioning itself as the status-polling counterpart.

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?

Provides an explicit usage directive: 'Poll this after create_deployment until status is active.' This tells the agent exactly when to call it. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives like get_deployment_cost or delete_deployment, but for this tool's primary purpose the guidance is clear and actionable.

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