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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. What it adds is return-shape semantics – that previousVersionName is the version a rollback restores and that canRollback accompanies it – plus a pointer to lexq_groups_get for field definitions. It stops short of stating scope limits (all environments? all versions? truncation/pagination?), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a compact field glossary with a cross-reference. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the rollback detail is placed where it is most useful.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does name the salient fields and their meaning, including the rollback pair. It is slightly incomplete about the boundaries of the overview – whether it spans environments, how many versions are reflected, and whether results are truncated.

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 the schema sets the baseline at 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly spends no words on arguments and instead puts its budget into return-value semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Show current deployment status of all groups') and enumerates the payload fields (live version, last deployment type, deployer). It is clearly an aggregate, multi-group read, but it never names the sibling it displaces (e.g. lexq_deploy_live or lexq_deploy_detail), so the distinction must be inferred from the word 'all'.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'all groups' suggests a fleet-wide overview rather than a per-group detail call, which happens to contrast with lexq_deploy_detail and lexq_deploy_live. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over those siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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