deployment_get_resource_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful correlation requirement, but says nothing about what happens when the resource is not correlated with the deployment (error vs. empty) or about the 'expand' side effects on response size — meaningful gaps for a lookup tool with 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?

Short and front-loaded — the purpose is in the first sentence. There is mild redundancy between sentence one and two, and the raw GET path repeats the annotation title, but overall it is efficiently sized.

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 bears responsibility for describing the return value; 'returns the resource with the specified ID' is minimal and doesn't hint at the resource object's shape or the effect of 'expand'. Adequate for a simple read, but thin for a tool whose only delivery is a returned payload.

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% and all three parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the documentation work. The description contributes only the implied path-parameter relationship, adding essentially nothing about the 'expand' options (currentRequest, inprogressRequests) beyond what the schema says.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('resource associated with a deployment'), and adds the key constraint that the resource must be correlated with the supplied deployment. However, in a sibling set dense with resource-fetching tools (deployment_get_resources_by_resource_id, deployment_get_resources, onboarding_get_resource_by_id), it never explains how this differs from those.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many overlapping deployment/resource retrieval tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the caller must already know both UUIDs). 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.