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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with it — no contradiction. The description adds value beyond the annotation by hinting at the response content (snapshot hash, integrity check), which tells the agent what kind of information it will receive. It does not, however, disclose much else about behavior such as error cases or whether the integrity check is a computed or stored value.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Get detailed info about a specific deployment') before stating the distinguishing return items. Every word earns its place, and there is zero redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity single-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, this is nearly complete. The description partially answers the return-value question by naming snapshot hash and integrity check, which is useful since no output schema exists. It could be more explicit about other fields in the response (e.g., deployment status), but for a simple read operation the coverage is solid.

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 deploymentId parameter is fully documented in the schema (type uuid, format, pattern, description 'Deployment ID'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, but it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get detailed info about a specific deployment') and adds concrete return specifics (snapshot hash, integrity check) that help pin down what this tool does. It differentiates from siblings via the singular 'deployment' focus and the detail-oriented return content, though it never names an alternative directly. Compared to deploy_overview, deploy_history, and deploy_diff, the intent is reasonably identifiable, but the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many deploy siblings (deploy_overview, deploy_history, deploy_diff, deploy_live). The description implies a use case by mentioning 'specific deployment' but offers no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. Given the large sibling set, this is a notable gap.

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