Get Compose project adoption

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the required 'applications:read' scope, the tenant-bound isolation of the candidate, and a warning that a destructive confirmation is the next step. It also enumerates the returned fields in lieu of an output schema, though it omits retry/backoff or not-yet-ready behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource and scope come first, the inspected fields second, and the workflow/authorization constraints last — properly front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, authorization and the shape of the result. Minor gap: it doesn't say what to do when the candidate is not yet eligible or how often to poll.

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%: orderNo documents its pattern, length and example format, and adoption_id documents its UUID type and where it comes from. The description adds only the qualifier 'tenant-bound', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll one tenant-bound Compose adoption candidate') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (eligibility, reconstructed Compose file, variable names, container and data-volume counts). The framing as the inspection step 'before requesting destructive confirmation' cleanly separates it from the prepare and confirm siblings in the same workflow.

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?

'Poll' establishes that this is a repeated/status-check call, and 'before requesting destructive confirmation' places it explicitly before the confirm step. However, it never names prepare_application_compose_adoption or confirm_application_compose_adoption as the alternatives, nor states the when-not condition (e.g., do not call after adoption is confirmed).

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