deployment_check_deployment_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the concrete endpoint and, importantly, tells the caller what a successful call returns ('OK if a deployment with the supplied name exists') – useful because there is no output schema.

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?

Three short lines, deprecation front-loaded, then behavior, then route. No filler; the only waste is repeating the resource in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter existence check with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured data omits – the return semantics ('OK'). It is slightly incomplete in not routing away from itself despite being deprecated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'name' as the deployment name (path). The description only restates 'supplied name', adding no format or path-vs-display-name nuance beyond the schema.

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 (check whether a deployment exists) and even names the route, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling deployment_check_deployment_name_exists, which is the one gap.

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 [DEPRECATED] marker implies the agent should prefer something else, but the description never names the replacement or states the condition under which this one is still appropriate. Usage is only implied, not guided.

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