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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the possible status values the tool can return, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as authentication requirements or response structure.

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 description is short and front-loads the key information about what is returned. The API endpoint path is included at the end, which is slightly redundant for an agent but does not detract significantly from the conciseness.

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 simple read-only status check, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, lists the possible return values (compensating for the absence of an output schema), and the parameter schema is fully documented. The only missing piece is explicit usage guidance, which is minor for this level of complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single parameter environment_id is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain the UUID. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the resource being queried (force-HTTPS status) and enumerates the possible outcomes (ENABLED_FOR_ALL, ENABLED_REDIRECT_TO_PRIMARY, DISABLED). It is clear what the tool does, although it lacks an explicit verb phrase and does not name related sibling tools to differentiate itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. The description simply states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and resource.

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