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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: secret values inside the configuration are redacted before reaching the caller, and the response includes the latest apply operation. The 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with the annotation, but the redaction disclosure is real added value for a config-inspection tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource and its contents, followed by a short redaction note and a two-word safety tag. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back (helm values, chart metadata, latest apply operation) and what is withheld (secrets). Safety and parameter discovery are covered by annotations and schema respectively, leaving little an agent would need beyond structure details such as pagination or field formatting.

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 (addon_name, cluster_id) are documented in the schema, including how to discover cluster ids via list_clusters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Get an installed addon's configuration') and enumerates the returned content (helm values document, chart metadata, latest apply operation), which helps separate it from get_addon_history, get_addon_settings, and get_addon_status. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is by implication of the returned payload rather than by routing language.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative getters (get_addon_details, get_addon_settings, get_addon_status, get_addon_history) that an agent would have to choose between. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and return contents.

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