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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real substance beyond that by enumerating the specific security checks performed and stating the return shape (severity plus per-violation keys). It still omits anything about rule-set versioning, false positives, or how severity is assigned, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the exact validation scope and followed by the usage trigger and return shape. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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 single-parameter, read-only validator with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract ('severity and per-violation keys') and the intended workflow position, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the single parameter already documents 'Full values.yaml content (typically read via github_read_file).' The description only restates that the input is a values.yaml string, so it adds essentially nothing beyond the schema; 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?

Names a specific verb (validate) and resource (Helm chart values.yaml string) plus the exact rule set enforced (KSV-0014, readOnlyRootFilesystem, runAsNonRoot, capabilities.drop, healthCheck.path). This clearly separates it from sibling validators like cicd_validate_pipeline_yaml, cicd_validate_workflow_yaml, and deploy_inspect_chart_values, which do different things.

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?

Explicitly states the intended moment of use: 'on a customer's pre-existing chart values before suggesting changes,' which gives the agent a clear trigger. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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