Every deploy of a service

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: each entry includes image, port, environment, and dependencies, and the revision identifier doubles as the run identifier for jobs. There is no contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what each revision contains, and the second ties the output to rollback and job runs, making every clause informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return contents and the special meaning of `revision` for jobs. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a read-only list of revisions with only two required parameters, the description covers what the agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the two parameters `project` and `service` are already fully described there. The description does not add extra semantics about these parameters or their expected formats, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as recorded revisions with image, port, environment, and dependencies, and explicitly connects `revision` to what `rollback` takes. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the title 'Every deploy of a service' and the phrasing 'this is the list of runs' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 concrete usage context by stating that `revision` is what `rollback` consumes and that for jobs this tool is the list of runs. It does not explicitly contrast it with `logs` or other siblings, but the rollback and run relationships make when-to-use reasonably clear.

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