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

Adds substantial behavior beyond readOnlyHint=true: it is a Postgres read, never contacts the agent, never escalates on its own, and discloses staleness semantics including heartbeat refresh defaults and stale_fallback_required thresholds. These are important operational traits an agent could not infer from the annotation alone.

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 description is front-loaded with the key cache-vs-live distinction and avoids repetition. It is dense rather than lean, especially the heartbeat/default-staleness parenthetical, but those details help interpret the returned staleness fields.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully explains the payload fields last_seen_at, staleness_seconds, and stale_fallback_required. The main remaining gap is that required and optional parameters are not explained beyond the partial schema coverage.

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 only 40%, and the description does not explain the semantics of kind, name, namespace, or how they select the named resource. The low schema coverage requires the description to compensate, but it provides no parameter-specific guidance.

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 and resource: returns one named resource from the synced k8s_resources cache, explicitly shaped like describe_resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from describe_resource by describing itself as a Postgres cache read rather than a live cluster read.

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 defines when to use this tool: the fresh-cache case that avoids a describe_resource agent round-trip. It also names when not to use it and the alternative: when verifying a recent change or confirming state a write depends on, escalate to describe_resource.

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