get_deployment

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

Adds real context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: Enterprise plan gating, a concrete 403 failure mode on non-Enterprise plans, and that credential fields come back masked. Missing only whether the gate is checked before or after ID validation and any rate-limit notes.

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 phrase 'Enterprise-gated' is stated twice — once at the start and again near the end with the 403 detail — which is redundant. The rest is tight, but the duplicate opening token wastes the most front-loaded position.

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?

Covers the access prerequisite, the failure mode, the ID source, and the masked-output caveat; an output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation. Only minor gaps remain (no success-code or unavailability handling detail).

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 baseline is 3; the description earns one more by explaining the non-obvious 'self' sentinel value in operational terms ('when authenticating as that deployment'), which the schema only restates as 'Deployment UUID or self'.

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 and resource ('Get one registered Gateway deployment by UUID'), plus the 'self' alias that distinguishes it from list_deployments. An agent knows exactly what this returns and how it differs from the list sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes ID resolution to list_deployments and names the 'self' case for deployment-authenticated callers. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. use update_deployment to modify), but the usage context is clear.

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