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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Read-only' plus adds substantive behavioral context the annotations cannot: it calls out credential_missing and source_mismatch as silent-breakage signals that the portal's overview hides, and describes the credential binding semantics. It stops short of noting auth requirements, pagination, or freshness of the sync data.

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 core answer and densely informative without filler; the usage trigger arrives early. The middle sentence is a long comma-separated enumeration that is slightly heavy, but every element listed is a real return field and earns its place given no output schema exists.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including the two non-obvious failure signals an agent would otherwise misread. Combined with the CLI twin reference ('ankra cluster gitops status'), an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 cluster_id and cluster_name are already documented (including that either is optional when a cluster is selected). The description adds nothing about which identifier takes precedence or how they resolve, so this sits at the schema-does-the-work 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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'The GitOps sync state of a cluster', then enumerates exactly what it returns (repository/branch, credential, sync status and phase, last synced and pending commits, last error, silent-breakage signals). It maps unambiguously to a distinct concern no sibling covers (list_gitops_conflicts and get_gitops_conflict_diff are about conflicts, not sync state).

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this before blaming a stack when a change committed to Git has not reached the cluster.' That tells the agent when to reach for this tool versus diagnosing the stack itself. It does not, however, name when-not or point at specific sibling alternatives (e.g. get_gitops_conflict_diff for conflict investigation).

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