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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns by saying 'Show', so no contradiction. The description adds useful context about the specific deployment attributes returned (version, type, deployer), but does not disclose any potential limitations, such as pagination, performance considerations, or whether the status is real-time or cached. With the annotation covering safety, a 3 is fair.

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?

A single, terse sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Show current deployment status') and packs the specific fields into a clear list. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameter-less, read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the returned fields. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or any caveats (e.g., what happens if no groups are deployed), but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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, so the schema carries no burden and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description provides no additional param semantics (there are none to provide).

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 ('Show'), a clear resource ('current deployment status of all groups'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (version, last deployment type, deployer). This clearly distinguishes it from other deploy tools like lexq_deploy_detail or lexq_deploy_history, which imply different scopes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its many deployment siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context in which this overview is preferable. The agent is left to infer from the name and description alone.

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