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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that build/runtime logs are optional and that it does not invent a deploy actor, but it does not explain the behavior of include_logs or how log retrieval interacts with log_type and log_limit.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The final phrase about not inventing a deploy actor is somewhat cryptic, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 has an output schema and clear safety annotations, so return-format and safety details are largely covered elsewhere. However, with five parameters and low schema description coverage, the description is only minimally complete because it does not fully explain log inclusion or context handling.

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 only 20%, so the description needs to carry more parameter meaning. It clarifies log_type as build/runtime and mentions the log_limit maximum, but leaves include_logs and context_id behavior largely unexplained and does not describe how the log parameters combine.

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 resource and selector: deployment detail by ID. It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as railway_deployments_latest or railway_logs.

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 this is for looking up a known deployment ID, but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of railway_deployments_latest, railway_logs, or deployment_status. No exclusions or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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