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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: data is read live through the agent rather than from a cache, and it includes releases Ankra did not deploy, which materially changes what an agent should expect in the result. It doesn't cover pagination mechanics beyond the schema's own truncation note, 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?

A single dense sentence with parentheticals, front-loading the core scope before the sibling comparison and the read-only note. Nothing is redundant, though the embedded CLI-equivalence aside is decoration an agent doesn't strictly need.

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 compensates by naming the return fields and clarifying coverage of non-Ankra releases. Combined with the drift-comparison guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though truncation behavior is only implied via the schema.

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 schema already documents namespace, cluster_id, cluster_name, name_filter and limit. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond implying a namespace/name listing, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Every Helm release actually installed on the cluster') plus the enumeration of returned fields (name, namespace, revision, status, chart, app version). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming list_addons directly, so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool versus an alternative: 'Compare with list_addons to find drift outside the GitOps record.' It also states a boundary condition ('uninstalling is not available here'), which prevents the agent from attempting a mutation through this route.

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