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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does add useful content signals that the response includes a snapshot hash and an integrity check, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs or whether the integrity check is computed on demand.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first and the notable return fields appended. No filler, though 'including' leaves the field list open-ended and slightly hedges what is actually returned.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential return highlights (snapshot hash, integrity check) and the lookup scope. Given the annotations cover safety and the schema covers the parameter, this is adequate; a note on failure for missing deployments would round it out.

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?

There is a single deploymentId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including uuid format and a validation pattern. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get detailed info') and resource ('a specific deployment'), making clear this is a single-item lookup rather than a list. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as lexq_deploy_overview, lexq_deploy_history, or lexq_deploy_live, so the differentiation is only implied by 'specific'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus lexq_deploy_overview or lexq_deploy_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this requires a known deploymentId.

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