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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nevertheless adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: the platform half is best-effort, a never-deployed project has no record there, and the response degrades to get_project rather than failing. That is genuine disclosure beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about auth or rate limits.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences ordered as payload, usage trigger, then caveat, with no filler. The long middle enumeration of return fields is dense but every item earns its place for a diagnostic tool lacking an output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, while also stating the degradation path and the usage trigger. An agent has everything needed to select and call this read-only diagnostic tool correctly.

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 0% and the description never defines project_id or its format, though the repeated references to 'the project' and the get_project superset relationship make the parameter's intent self-evident. With a single obvious identifier it adequately compensates but adds no real semantic value.

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 precise relationship to a sibling tool: 'Everything get_project returns, plus what the platform observes,' then enumerates the added payload (container state, health, restart count, image digest, node/tier, ingress hostnames, disk quota, secret set version, last failure class). An agent can tell exactly what this tool yields and how it differs from get_project without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when a deploy has failed or a service is not answering and get_deploy_status has told you only that'), naming the sibling that precedes it in the workflow. The condition that selects this tool over get_project, get_deploy_status, get_logs, and get_events is stated rather than implied.

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