deployment_get_deployment_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the raw GET path, which repeats the annotation title, and says nothing about expand semantics, soft-deleted deployments, pagination, or error behavior for a missing ID.

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?

Short, but sentences two and three are largely redundant restatements of sentence one and the annotation title. No wasted length overall, but also no information den

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could helpfully say what a returned deployment contains and how expand affects the payload; it does not. Given fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the remaining gap is modest but real.

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 100%, with each of the six parameters (including the expand enum and the deleted/expandProject/expandResources/expandLastRequest flags) documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Fetch a specific deployment") and clarifies single-item scope by ID. It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as iaas_get_single_deployment, onboarding_get_deployment_by_id, or deployment_get_deployments, so an agent must inspect schemas to pick the right one.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other deployment retrieval tools (list vs. by-id vs. onboarding variants). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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