deployment_get_resources_by_resource_id

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 fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no auth requirements, no behavior when the ID is missing or unknown, no discussion of what 'expand' changes about the payload. It restates the operation and the raw route.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing 'GET /deployment/api/resources/{resourceId}' duplicates the annotation title and earns little, but the overall size is not wasteful.

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?

A simple read with no output schema; the description states that the resource is returned, which is about the minimum needed. It omits anything an agent would need beyond the schema – notably how 'expand' alters the response and whether a 404 is expected for unknown IDs – so it only just clears the bar.

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%, so both resourceId and expand are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning to the expand enum values or to the path-parameter format, leaving it at the baseline.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a specific resource'), which is clear on its own. But the sibling list contains deployment_get_resource_by_id and deployment_get_resource, and the description does nothing to say which one an agent should pick, so the purpose is not distinguishable in context.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical alternatives. An agent reading this alongside deployment_get_resource_by_id gets no signal for choosing between them.

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