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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value on top by disclosing the return shape: lifecycle state plus version and a preview/public address that are only present once the build is ready, which tells an agent the payload varies by state.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the state enumeration, followed by the conditional return fields. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 output schema, the description responsibly summarizes return values (state, version, address, conditional on ready), and the annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain: no note on what happens when no build exists or how to obtain a projectId.

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?

There is one parameter (projectId) with 0% schema description coverage and no regex explanation in the description. The phrase 'a project's build' implies the parameter identifies which project, but the description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's pattern constraint.

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 resource (a project's build) and enumerates the exact states returned (queued, building, ready, failed), so an agent can immediately tell this is a build-status read rather than a project or version listing. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_project, get_result or list_versions, keeping it short of a 5.

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: the phrase 'when ready' signals this is a polling endpoint for a build in progress, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_result, get_publish_check or list_versions. An agent must infer the selection rule from the lifecycle states listed.

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