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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish the safety profile. The description adds useful context on what the output conveys (build results and which is live), and notes relative cost versus site_status. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 4 is justified; it doesn't detail pagination but the output schema presumably covers return shape.

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 short sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a practical use case, then a cost-saving tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is read-only with idempotent hints, has a full output schema, and only 2 params documented at 100% coverage. The description covers purpose, use case, and alternatives. Could mention limit/default behavior, but the schema handles that. Adequate for the tool's low complexity.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add param-specific detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself explains the project param well (with the slug-vs-id guidance and fallback via my_projects). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 title 'История сборок проекта' (Project build history) and the description state the purpose specifically: list recent builds, what each ended with, and which one is currently live. It distinguishes itself clearly from sibling tools like site_status, rollback, and diagnose_deploy by naming them and explaining its role as the prerequisite for those.

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 is explicit about when to use it ('выбрать цель для rollback или diagnose_deploy') and gives a clear when-not-to-use: for 'what's wrong with the site right now', site_status is cheaper. It names specific sibling alternatives, which is ideal usage guidance.

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