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

readOnlyHint already establishes safety, and the description adds genuinely useful return-shape context: per-group currentDeploymentId, previousVersionName with its rollback meaning, and canRollback. It stops short of stating ordering, whether groups without deployments are included, or size/pagination considerations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the field-level detail. Every clause carries information about what the agent will get back; no filler.

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?

For a zero-param, read-only, output-schema-less overview, the description covers purpose and return contents well, and cross-references lexq_groups_get for field semantics. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and treatment of groups with no deployment.

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 for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 and resource: show current deployment status across all groups, naming the fields returned (live version, last deployment type, deployer). This is clearly distinct from detail/history siblings by the 'all groups' scope, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 'all groups' scope implicitly signals when to use this over a per-group view, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many lexq_deploy_* siblings. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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