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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it can wait for completion, reports service outcomes, omitted or config-breaking variables, warnings, failed step/server, and returns redacted log excerpts. 'This call asks no human' also signals that no approval workflow is involved.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then follows with the response details and wait behavior. It is dense but every sentence adds relevant information without repetition.

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 compensates by describing the returned status, service outcomes, warnings, failure details, and redacted logs. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and read-only annotations, it gives an agent enough to call the tool 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 parameter meanings are already documented. The description still adds useful semantics by clarifying that the deployment number is optional and defaults to the latest, and that wait_seconds makes the call wait for the deployment outcome.

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 identifies a specific resource ('One Deployment') and a precise scope ('the latest unless you name its number'), then enumerates what the response covers. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling deployment_list, which handles collections rather than a single deployment.

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?

It states a clear usage context: inspect a single deployment, defaulting to the latest, and optionally wait for completion. It does not explicitly name deployment_list as the alternative for listing deployments, so the when-to-use guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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