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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: environments are one per branch, the url host ends with -<branch>, production is ALSO served at a canonical address, and addresses must not be assembled. These are non-obvious details that help the agent interpret results correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded: first defines the resource and its structure, then states the exact questions it answers ben, and ends with a critical usage constraint. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and both safety annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: environment-to-branch mapping, address construction rules, build state availability, and the canonical production address exception. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and understand results.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the sole project parameter, including slug, id, working site address forms, and the caveat that the host is not always the slug. The tool description itself adds no further parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the project's environments, explains they are one per branch or the single cli one, and states that each has an address and latest build state. It explicitly answers concrete questions ('where is the preview of my branch', 'what is on production now') and distinguishes itself from related sources like site_status and my_projects.

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 description clearly states when to use the tool by framing it as the answer to preview/production location questions resources, and gives a strong behavioral rule: 'Take addresses from here, never assemble them.' It references site_status/my_projects for the canonical production address, which implies alternatives, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use conditions.

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