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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results span owned and shared deployments, the `owned` field distinguishes them, and brief mode returns a defined field subset. It does not describe pagination or ordering, which is the main remaining gap.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: scope first, then the filter and brief-mode usage. The 'owned flag tells them apart' clause is slightly compressed given `owned` is not a parameter, but it still earns its place.

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 must carry return-shape information, and it does for brief mode by enumerating fields. The full-record shape and result ordering/pagination are undocumented, a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it clarifies that `brief` swaps the full record for a specific short row (id, name, state, url, runtime, entry file). It also introduces the `owned` flag as a discriminator on results, which helps an agent interpret what `name` filtering will return.

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 plus the access scope: 'List every deployment you can access (owned + shared).' It also implicitly separates itself from single-record siblings with 'Pass name to find one by name,' but never names deployments_get or deployments_searchLogs explicitly, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance for the parameters ('pass name to find one by name', 'brief: true when you only need to pick one'), which implies the difference from a detail-fetching tool. However, it never says when not to use this tool or points to a named alternative for full-record or log-style lookups.

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