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

The 'Read-only' statement merely duplicates readOnlyHint: true and earns no credit. The description does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the shape of the response (per-resource grouping, latest apply operations, states, failure detail), which matters because no output schema exists. It says nothing about pagination behavior or partial results, so a 3 is right.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: what it returns, when to use it, and its safety profile. The return-content sentence is front-loaded, so the agent gets the highest-value information first.

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 inspection tool with 5 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, result shape, and usage trigger. It could be slightly more complete by noting that results are paginated (page/page_size exist in the schema), but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, with page, page_size, search, cluster_id and stack_name all documented in the schema (including how to discover cluster ids via list_clusters). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (get) plus resource (a stack's deployment status), and it qualifies the granularity as 'grouped per resource' with named content (latest apply operations, states, failure detail). This distinguishes it from neighboring tools such as get_stack_details or get_stack_history, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: 'Use this to see whether a stack's addons and manifests deployed successfully.' That gives a clear triggering condition. It does not name any alternative tool or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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