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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by naming the categories of data returned (version, sync status, health, resource tree), which is helpful given there is no output schema. It does not cover auth needs or caching, but the annotation already establishes the safe-read profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned data categories are stated immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target and lists the returned data. It omits routing guidance against similar addon getters, which is a modest gap rather than a blocker.

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 addon_name and cluster_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is provided there, which is the expected baseline.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific addon,' plus an enumeration of what details are included (version, sync status, health, resource tree). It does not differentiate from closely named siblings like get_addon_status, get_addon_settings, or get_addon_history, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description states only what the tool returns, with no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the name alone; siblings like get_addon_status and get_addon_settings are not addressed.

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