Deployment status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool is deterministic, read-only, restricted to a single configured JSON source, and performs no mutation, shell, SSH, network, or secret access. It also explains the UNKNOWN/UNAVAILABLE edge semantics and that evidenceAgeSeconds never influences the verdict.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: source, verdict semantics, evidence-age behavior, exclusions, input constraint, and side-effect denials. The description is longer than average but tightly packed and front-loaded with its core purpose.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return fields need not be enumerated, and the description still covers edge-state semantics, evidence-age behavior, input constraints, and non-effects. An agent has all necessary context to invoke and interpret this 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?

The input schema already exhaustively defines the only valid input as {} with additionalProperties false, so the description adds minimal parameter information beyond restating "Input must be exactly {}." The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies, as the description confirms the expected empty input.

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 precise question—"What deployment state is reported by the configured application/deployment evidence source?"—and enumerates the exact deterministic verdict set. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by ruling out health, capacity, readiness, and failure-cause assessments.

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 provides clear when-not-to-use guidance by excluding application health, VPS health, readiness to deploy, and failure causes, which map to sibling tools. It also clarifies the meaning of UNAVAILABLE versus UNKNOWN to aid interpretation, though it stops short of naming alternative tools explicitly.

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