recommend_rollout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description usefully reinforces this with 'This is advice only; it does not change the rollout' and adds that the response carries reasons and that thresholds come from thresholds.yaml. What's missing is anything about data windows, freshness, or what happens when thresholds.yaml is absent or a rollout isn't found.

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 short sentences: the outcome and data source are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the one caveat that matters. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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-optional-parameter, read-only advisory tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, advisory nature, and decision source adequately. It could be slightly stronger by noting the evaluation window or the failure mode when no rollout is active.

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% and both optional parameters (app alias/package name, version_code defaulting to the production-rolling release) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and outcome set ('Recommend expand, hold or halt') plus the resource scope ('staged rollout') and the decision source ('thresholds.yaml'), so an agent can tell this apart from get_release_health or list_releases. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this is called when deciding whether to advance a rollout. There is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisite (e.g. thresholds.yaml must exist), and no mention of when get_release_health or list_releases would be the better call instead.

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