deployment_get_deployment_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing further — no note on default pagination size, whether soft-deleted records appear by default, or the shape of the returned collection — so it contributes essentially no behavioral context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the second sentence restates it and the third is a raw GET path that duplicates the annotation title. It is short, but a portion of the content is redundant rather than 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 read tool with no output schema, the schema plus annotations carry most of the weight, and the description is minimally sufficient to identify the operation. It leaves gaps around result ordering defaults, soft-delete behavior and what the returned request objects contain.

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% and all ten parameters, including pagination (page/size/skip/top), sort, search, deleted and inprogressRequests, are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 deployment requests. Returns the requests for the deployment') and anchors it to a REST endpoint, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as deployment_get_request, deployment_get_request_events, or deployment_list_resource_requests.

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 list endpoint versus the single-request or request-events siblings, and no mention of prerequisites like a valid deployment context. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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