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

readOnlyHint is already declared, so 'Read-only' is largely a restatement. However the description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: the exported artifact's format, that exactly one published version is exported, and that the document includes the parameters the profile declares.

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, no filler. The core output artifact is front-loaded, followed by the use-case routing, and the read-only guarantee is placed last.

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, and the description compensates by naming the return type (ClusterInfrastructureAsCode YAML document) and its contents. With only two fully documented required parameters and a read-only annotation, nothing further is needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%; both profile_id and version are documented in the schema itself (including where to get them). The description repeats the 'published version' notion but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (export), resource (one published version of a stack profile), and concrete output artifact (ClusterInfrastructureAsCode YAML document). It also anchors the tool against the CLI twin and implies differentiation from get_stack_profile by scoping it to the full IaC definition rather than profile metadata.

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?

Gives three explicit use cases: reading a profile's full definition, copying it into another organisation with import_stack_profile (named alternative/companion), and keeping it in Git. The condition selecting this tool over siblings is clear.

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