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

With only readOnlyHint in annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so richly: it explains the three-valued status semantics ('recorded'/'absent'/'unknown') with an explicit warning never to report 'unknown' as Ankra proposing nothing, and clarifies the database is a CloudNativePG PostgreSQL cluster. This is exactly the interpretive context an agent needs.

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 read verb and scope before the enumerations, and no sentence is wasted given the absence of an output schema. It is dense and long, but each enumerated member earns its place by documenting return structure the schema does not cover.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what is returned, where the contract comes from (.ankra/ankra.yaml), how to interpret statuses, and what the options feed into. Nothing essential to calling or interpreting it 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 coverage is 100% for the single application_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail for the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the setup Ankra generated for an Application before anything is deployed') and then enumerates the exact contents: detected language/framework, setup PR, database cluster, deploy option contract. An agent can distinguish this from get_application and revise_application_setup without opening either 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?

Routes clearly to the sibling: 'negotiable_options lists exactly what revise_application_setup can change' and 'Read this before revising,' establishing the read-then-revise workflow. It gives no explicit when-not conditions, but the pre-deploy framing and the named alternative make intent unambiguous.

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