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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's "Read-only" restates it without adding credit. What does add value is the disclosure of the returned dimensions—cluster/stack pairs, running version, and whether it trails the profile's current version or sits on a deprecated one—which is meaningful behavioral context an agent wouldn't get from a readOnly flag.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by the workflow pointer. The parenthetical CLI twin reference ("`ankra stack-profiles deployments`") is helpful for some agents but is the one clause that doesn't directly serve tool selection.

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 explaining returns and does so concretely, including the drift/deprecation signal. With only two optional, fully-described parameters, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, and both parameters already document the profile_id/profile_name either-or choice in full. The description adds no format, resolution-order, or ambiguity-handling detail beyond that, so this sits at the baseline expected when the schema does the work.

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 ("List where a stack profile runs") and then enumerates exactly what comes back: every cluster and stack deployed from it, the version each runs, and drift/deprecation status. This distinguishes it from list_stack_profiles and get_stack_deployments without the agent needing to open either 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 an explicit precondition—"Use this before rollout_stack_profile_version"—which tells the agent the workflow context where this tool belongs. It stops short of naming alternatives for adjacent questions (e.g. get_stack_deployments for stack-side views), so the agent must still infer which lookup to prefer.

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