vercel_get_deployment

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about authentication via api_key, team scoping, error behavior for missing deployments, or whether the response includes build logs/status.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Brevity is achieved but partly by omitting necessary detail rather than by tight writing.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter documentation and no annotations beyond safety hints, the description is the only source of operating detail and provides almost none. An agent cannot tell what 'details' contains, how to authenticate, or what team scoping does.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never explains that deploymentId is required, or what api_key and teamId are for (auth credential vs team scope), leaving the agent to infer everything from bare parameter names.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific Vercel deployment'), which clearly contrasts with the list-style sibling vercel_list_deployments. It stops short of naming the sibling or clarifying what 'details' includes, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 vercel_list_deployments, no prerequisites such as needing an existing deploymentId or team context, and no notes on what happens if the ID is unknown. Usage is only implied by the words 'specific' and 'Get'.

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