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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it works without a selected cluster, reports a publish validation verdict, and describes the return payload. It does not mention latency, pagination, or empty-draft behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 resource definition, then return contents, then defaulting/calling guidance. Four sentences, all substantive, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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 present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates stack contents (addons with Helm values, manifests, variables), parameters, validation verdict, and builder path. Combined with the defaulting and call-timing guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it tells the agent to pass draft_id only when several drafts exist and explains that page context already carries the open draft's id, which is a decision rule the schema does not express.

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 (read) and a precisely scoped resource: a stack profile BUILDER draft, clarified as 'the org-level template being composed on the Stack Profiles pages'. This cleanly separates it from siblings like get_stack_profile, list_stack_profiles, and create_stack_profile_draft.

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 a clear calling context ('Call this first when the user is on a stack profile page, and again after draft edits to verify them') plus the condition for supplying draft_id when multiple drafts exist. Strong on when-to-use, but never names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use it.

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