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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveness false. The description adds the deploy-commit context, which annotations cannot express. It does not explain the return shape (though no output schema exists, so this is relevant) or latency/polling behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 two return values and then the deploy context. No waste.

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 zero-param health-check tool this is adequate, but without an output schema the description could say more about what 'liveness and commit' looks like or how often to poll. It covers the 'what' but not the 'how to interpret'.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter meaning to convey, and the description correctly says nothing about inputs.

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 what it returns: liveness and the commit deployed right now. This is a specific resource pair and distinguishable from siblings like audit_url or check_domain, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The phrase 'it is how the smoke waits for its own deploy' implies when to use it – during a deploy smoke test – but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative. An agent can infer context but must guess whether it's also useful for general health checks.

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