get_deployment

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: enterprise plan gating with a 403 response, masked authentication and registry credentials in responses, and the specific meaning of the 'self' identifier.

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 compact and front-loaded with key information, but 'Enterprise-gated' appears twice, creating minor redundancy. Structure is otherwise logical: gating, main function, ID resolution, response masking, and error behavior.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential access modes, credential masking, enterprise restriction, and ID resolution path. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'self' is only valid when authenticating as that deployment and by emphasizing the 'registered' status requirement. It does not elaborate on organisation_id, but the schema already describes it clearly.

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 clearly states the tool fetches one registered Gateway deployment by UUID, with an explicit alternative of using 'self' when authenticating as that deployment. It also names list_deployments as the way to resolve an ID, effectively differentiating itself from the sibling listing tool.

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 gives explicit guidance: use list_deployments to resolve an ID before calling this tool, and use 'self' only when authenticating as the deployment. It also provides a clear exclusion by stating this is Enterprise-gated and returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans.

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