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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the concrete fields of the returned config (runtime, version, entry file, start command), which effectively substitutes for a missing output schema. It says nothing about errors or auth, but the bar is lower given full annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and a compact field list. There is no filler, though the fragment style leaves no room for the identifier clarification that is needed.

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 simple read-only getter, listing the returned fields largely covers the absent output schema. However, the required 'id' argument is left unexplained, which is a real gap for the one input an agent must produce.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is never mentioned. The description does not clarify whether 'id' is a deployment id, a service id, or a slug, so the agent must guess what identifier to supply.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('startup config') and enumerates what it returns: runtime, version, entry file, start command. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from mutation siblings like deployments_updateStartup, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as deployments_get or deployments_updateStartup. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to the update tool.

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