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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the specific paths probed, and critically that a null result triggers the wizard to warn about non-standard keys 'instead of silently miswriting'. That null-semantics disclosure is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs and cannot infer from the annotation. It stops short of 5 by not covering error handling or partial-output 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?

Purpose and probed paths are front-loaded, and the 'use once per analysis' instruction follows logically, with a single short clause on parameter passing. The middle sentence is dense with parenthetical path lists but every clause carries information, so waste is minimal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, which it does by naming the extracted paths/flags and the meaning of nulls feeding into chart_values_shape. It is complete enough to call correctly; only finer output-shape details (exact return structure) are left implicit.

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% and both parameters are already documented ('Full values.yaml content' and 'Ankra cluster id (UUID)... Discover ids with list_clusters'). The description's 'Pass the raw values.yaml content as content' largely restates the schema, and cluster_id is not addressed at all, so the 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 ('Probe') and resource ('a Helm chart's values.yaml') and then enumerates the exact canonical paths and concept flags it extracts. The scope (one call to populate DeployAnalysis.chart_values_shape) makes it distinguishable from the many chart-related siblings such as get_chart_default_values or render_chart_template without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this once per analysis to populate the DeployAnalysis.chart_values_shape field' gives an explicit when-to-use condition and invocation cadence. It doesn't name a competing alternative (e.g. cicd_validate_chart_values) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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