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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context beyond that by explaining the tool aggregates project info, deploys, and live address checks into a single conclusion. This gives the agent insight into the tool's consolidated nature without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second succinctly explains the parameter and the benefit of a consolidated call. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It even cross-references my_projects for slug resolution, making it self-sufficient.

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% with a detailed parameter description for 'project' (id/slug, how to obtain slug from my_projects). The description repeats the id/slug point but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool reports site status ('whether it is being served and how its build ended') and distinguishes itself from more granular sibling tools by consolidating three separate calls (project, deploys, live check) into one. The first sentence is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 explicitly frames usage: 'One call instead of three... an agent needs the conclusion, not the raw material to assemble it from.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (when a high-level status summary is needed) but does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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