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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the scope of returned data (addons, manifests, configurations), but says nothing about auth requirements, size, or whether the payload is large/heavy. With annotations covering the safety profile, this modest addition lands at a 3.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and returned contents stated up front. No filler, though it is minimal enough that it leaves gaps rather than being optimally informative.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — it does name the categories (addons, manifests, configurations), which is adequate for a simple two-param read tool backed by readOnlyHint. Minor gaps remain around auth and payload size.

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%; both cluster_id and stack_name are documented in the schema, including a discovery hint ('Discover ids with list_clusters'). The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific stack') and enumerates the content returned (addons, manifests, configurations). This implicitly separates it from get_stack_cost, get_stack_history, and list_stacks, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied ('get details for a stack') but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives like get_stack_profile or list_stacks. An agent can infer intent but must reason about selection itself.

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