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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond that: it contacts the provider API directly, so latency of a few seconds is possible, and it enumerates the returned fields (name, location, version, status, node count, node pools). It stops short of describing pagination or partial-failure behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the alternative routing, then behavior. Dense but nearly every clause carries signal; the parenthetical CLI twin is marginal but harmless.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return fields, and latency/auth expectations. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description echoes the provider enum and implies the credential scoping but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states (e.g. credential_id comes from list_credentials). 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 (list) and resource (managed Kubernetes clusters already running in the provider account behind a credential), and explicitly marks imported vs unimported ones. It also names the sibling tools it is not (import_managed_cluster, list_managed_k8s_options), so the agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this before import_managed_cluster' and 'list_managed_k8s_options is the catalogue for creating NEW clusters, not this.' Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated with named alternatives.

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