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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the explicit 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant but consistent. The description adds real value beyond annotations: the availability gate (backups enabled) and the crucial caveat that an 'unavailable' custom_resource_scan means the database list is incomplete, not empty. That caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

The verb and resource are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence (returned fields, scan caveat, read-only, availability) contributes distinct information. The parenthetical CLI twin is slightly noisy but the overall passage is dense and earns its length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so (engine, consistency, requested size, storage class) plus the completeness caveat around custom_resource_scan. Combined with fully documented params and a readOnly annotation, an agent has nearly everything needed to call and interpret it 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 each of the three params is documented in the schema, including that cluster_name is optional when a cluster is already selected. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline is the correct anchor; with zero ambiguities in the schema this stays slightly above a bare minimum.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (list stack data assets) and precisely scopes it: standalone PVCs and database custom resources with claims folded in, each with engine, consistency, size and storage class. It even names the CLI twin (`ankra cluster stacks data list`), so an agent can distinguish it from near-siblings like get_pvcs or get_statefulsets without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an availability condition (only offered when backups are enabled) and tells the agent how to interpret partial results via custom_resource_scan, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives like get_pvcs/get_statefulsets or list_stacks, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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