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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is already known to be a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context—just the API endpoint—but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond what annotations convey.

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 efficient: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the API endpoint for technical context. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

While the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., a list of deployments). With no output schema, this is a gap. Pagination behavior could also be clarified given the page_size and page_cursor parameters.

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%, meaning all 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for any parameter, so it meets the baseline level of value.

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 states 'List a site's deployment history,' specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'deployments' scoped to a site. This distinguishes it from siblings like forge_get_deployment (single) and forge_deploy_site (create).

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 implies usage for listing deployment history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forge_get_deployment or forge_deploy_site. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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