Get check results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Read' is consistent with those annotations but adds no new behavioral traits like error conditions, staleness, or permissions. The sibling note implies it does not trigger a run, which is mildly useful but largely restates the read-only nature already captured.

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 sentences with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by default behavior and sibling routing. Every clause earns its place and the whole definition is compact and scannable.

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 simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It names the result categories, explains the deployment default, and routes to the correct sibling for triggers and publish state. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns at a conceptual level.

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 project_id and deployment_id are already fully documented. The description's 'Omit deployment_id for the latest' largely repeats the schema's own 'Omit to use the project's latest deployment,' adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb 'Read' and concrete resource types: 'Lighthouse, a11y, and link results for a deployment.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming run_checks and get_deployment_status, so an agent can tell this is a read-only results fetch, not a trigger or deployment status call.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use alternatives: 'Use run_checks to trigger a new cycle; use get_deployment_status for publish/promote state, not scores.' It also states the default behavior for deployment_id, leaving no ambiguity about calling patterns.

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