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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (addon names/charts/versions, manifest names, required parameters) and the non-obvious behavior that current_version can be older than latest. It doesn't cover auth requirements or pagination, but for a read-only lookup this is strong.

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 purpose, then the operational caveat. The parenthetical inventory of returned fields is dense but each item is load-bearing given there is no output schema. Slightly long, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely. Combined with the pre-instantiation guidance and the rollback caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema as alternatives to each other. The description adds nothing about profile_id vs profile_name, 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 ('Get') and resource ('stack profile's details') and enumerates the exact payload: metadata, version history, pinned and latest version contents. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_stack_profile_draft, list_stack_profiles, and get_stack_details.

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 prescribes when to call it ('Call this before instantiate_stack_profile') and what to read from the result ('read the current_version entry'). It also explains the failure mode avoided: instantiation defaults to current, which can lag latest after a rollback.

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