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

The readOnlyHint annotation already carries the safety profile, so the burden is lighter. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the returned fields (stack name, state, addon names with chart/namespace/health, manifest names), which is necessary since no output schema exists. It does not disclose pagination or whether 'all' is bounded to the cluster or the organisation.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: scope first, then return contents, then routing guidance. 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 compensates well by listing the returned fields, and the annotations cover the read-only safety property. Gaps around pagination/result bounds leave a small amount unsaid for a list tool, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% for the single cluster_id parameter, including how to discover ids via list_clusters, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 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 ('List all stacks') and scopes it precisely with '(deployed and draft)'. It also distinguishes itself from the many stack-related siblings by naming both its downstream use and an alternative overview tool, so an agent can place it without opening the 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('find which stack manages a specific addon') and an explicit alternative with its qualifying condition ('Prefer get_cluster_snapshot for a broader overview'). Nothing is left to inference.

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