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

Far exceeds the readOnlyHint=true annotation: it discloses the ~40 second wait, that nothing is changed, the ordering of a real run (control planes one at a time, workers, bastion last), which hosts a run would skip and why, and the caveat that a non-success host has an unknown rather than empty plan. Genuinely useful behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every sentence carries substantive information. It is dense and somewhat run-on, packing many clauses into a single paragraph, but there is little wasted text.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: per-host package/reboot/list-age details, the stateful_verdict, run ordering, omitted hosts with reasons, and the patch policy. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 both cluster_id/cluster_name are already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions include_stateful_nodes, but that belongs to the sibling run_os_patches rather than this tool's own parameters, so it adds no real parameter meaning here.

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 ('Dry-run the rolling OS security-patch lane on an Ankra-provisioned cluster') and immediately scopes it ('on every node and the bastion ... changes nothing'). It is clearly distinguishable from run_os_patches (the actual run) and get_os_patch_status (polling), both of which are named.

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 frames itself as a dry-run that changes nothing, explains that held-back package fixes 'only arrive through run_os_patches', and names get_os_patch_status as the follow-up when completed is false. When to use this versus the alternatives is fully spelled out.

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