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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' note is redundant but consistent. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the values are the chart's shipped defaults and that a stack addon's configuration overrides them. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent interpret the result correctly.

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, front-loaded with the resource definition and then the usage guidance. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition or filler.

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 read-only getter with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the chart's default values.yaml) and when to use it. It could say more about the return format (e.g., YAML) or whether output is large, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters (registry_name, chart_name, chart_version) including where to obtain each value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: the default values.yaml of a single chart version, as the chart ships it. It gives a concrete purpose ('before writing an addon configuration or to explain what a chart does by default') that distinguishes it from mutation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_chart_details, deploy_inspect_chart_values, or render_chart_template.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use this before writing an addon configuration or to explain what a chart does by default.' It also notes that a stack addon's configuration overrides these values, which helps an agent understand when the defaults apply. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative sibling tool.

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