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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=true, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: Ankra fetches the kubeconfig via the provider API and installs the agent itself, the operation is refused on name/already-imported conflicts, and the cluster reads as offline until the agent checks in. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what the conflict-refusal returns, so it falls 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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling contrast before preconditions and post-state. Slightly packed, but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 covers the important unknowns for a mutation: side effects (kubeconfig fetch + agent install), refusal conditions, and the resulting offline state until check-in. It leaves credential/permission requirements implicit, which is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-level additions (provider_cluster_id comes from discover_managed_clusters, name defaults to the provider's name) restate what the schema already documents, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 precise verb+resource ('Adopt a managed Kubernetes cluster that already runs at the provider') and immediately names the sibling it is not: 'unlike import_cluster there is no command for the operator to run.' The agent can distinguish this from import_cluster, create_managed_cluster, and discover_managed_clusters without opening any schema.

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 the precondition for invocation (cluster must already exist at the provider), the source of the required identifier ('Take provider_cluster_id from discover_managed_clusters'), the refusal conditions ('already imported or the name is taken'), and the alternative (import_cluster). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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