onboarding_get_deployment

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 covered. The description only adds the organization-level scoping and the underlying GET path; it stays silent on pagination, result ordering, and total-count behavior.

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?

The first sentence is duplicated verbatim by the second, and the raw endpoint adds little. The scope information is front-loaded, but a third of the text is pure redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain around pagination defaults and result shape.

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?

All five parameters (limit, expand, filter, select, tenantLinks) are documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about OData filter syntax or select semantics, so 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 ('Query') and resource ('onboarding deployments') with the scope 'in the current organization', which signals a collection/list read rather than a single-record fetch. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling onboarding_get_deployment_by_id, but the plural scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and names no alternative. It does not say when to prefer this list query over onboarding_get_deployment_by_id or deployment_get_deployments, leaving routing to inference.

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