Get group deploy token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting the return wrapper and DeployToken model plus the ParameterError/MissingParameterError failure modes, but it cites a 'deploy_token_id' argument that does not exist in the schema, which is confusing rather than clarifying.

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 opening sentence is crisp and front-loaded, but the rest is auto-generated docstring boilerplate ('**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request', 'Returns: Response: A wrapper...') that adds little and includes a stale parameter reference. It is short enough not to be bloated, yet much of the space is not earning its place.

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 10-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it neither explains the parameters nor clarifies which field identifies the token (name vs token) or what the DeployToken model contains beyond its name. The mismatch between the documented kwargs and the actual schema leaves the agent with insufficient information to call it 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 description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it only names group_id and a nonexistent deploy_token_id, leaving name, token, scopes, username, expires_at, page, per_page and max_pages entirely unexplained. Nothing tells the agent whether these are lookup filters, pagination controls, or fields of the token being created/returned.

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 and resource ('Get a specific deploy token for a group'), which separates it from the plural sibling gitlab_get_group_deploy_tokens and from gitlab_get_project_deploy_token by scope. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring from the name.

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 statement of prerequisites (token scope/permission needed to read deploy tokens), and no mention of alternatives such as the list endpoint or the project-level equivalent. The agent must guess the context from the tool name alone.

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