Deployment readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, read-only, advisory, performs no mutation/shell/SSH/network/secrets access, never changes the verdict based on evidenceAgeSeconds, and explains the UNKNOWN vs UNAVAILABLE distinction. This is far more behavioral detail than typical tool descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and verdict types, then systematically covers evidence source, verdict meanings, and safety limitations. It is longer than strictly necessary and contains some redundancy around being advisory and non-mutating, but every sentence carries meaningful operational information for a deployment-related tool.

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?

Despite having zero parameters and an output schema, the tool is safety-sensitive and potentially confusing due to its deployment-related name. The description provides complete context: evidence sources, verdict semantics, advisory scope, input requirements, and explicit non-actions. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and what the verdict means.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already reflects an empty object with additionalProperties false. The description adds explicit reinforcement that 'Input must be exactly {}', which removes any ambiguity about whether optional or unexpected fields could be accepted. This fully addresses parameter semantics even without parameters.

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 opens with a clear, specific question ('does the application satisfy the minimum deterministic prerequisites for attempting a deployment?') and names the exact return values READY | NOT_READY | UNKNOWN | UNAVAILABLE. It distinguishes itself from engineering.deploy.status by explicitly naming it as a sibling using the same evidence source while clarifying this tool is an advisory readiness check.

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 gives strong context for when to use the tool: when a deterministic read-only readiness verdict is needed, based on existing evidence, without new configuration. It names engineering.deploy.status as sharing the same evidence source and clearly states exclusions ('does not predict deployment success', 'does not inspect code, migrations or release contents'), though it does not explicitly say 'use X instead' for alternative scenarios.

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