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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this surface never encrypts or decrypts, and the private key never leaves the agent. This clearly delineates the safe boundary of the operation, though it says nothing about caching, freshness, or return shape.

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 dense sentence plus a short clause, front-loaded with the core identity of the tool. No filler, though the parenthetical CLI reference and crypto caveat make it slightly heavy for a simple config read.

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 parameterless, read-only config getter with no output schema, the description covers identity, the key concept (enabled flag + AGE public key), and the crypto safety boundary. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only explicit usage routing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 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?

States a specific resource (the organisation's SOPS configuration) and precisely what it reveals — whether SOPS is enabled and the AGE public key used for encryption. Naming the CLI twin (`ankra cluster sops-config`) further anchors the concept and distinguishes it from the many other get_* config tools.

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 explains what the tool is but gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The read-only framing implies it is a safe inspection call, but an agent gets no signal about which situations should trigger this versus other config-read tools.

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