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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that it 'checks' rather than performs an action, and the `kubectl auth can-i` analogy further clarifies the read-only, non-mutating nature. No contradictions.

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 description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a concise analogy. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with full schema documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description succinctly conveys the core function and analogy, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool. No critical context is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text (e.g., verb, resourceType, namespace). The tool description itself does not add parameter-level details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Checks whether an action is allowed on a Kubernetes resource.' It also uses a well-known analogy (`kubectl auth can-i`) that reinforces the exact behavior and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform resource operations like apply, delete, or get.

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?

The description provides clear context that this is for checking authorization, similar to `kubectl auth can-i`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is unique among siblings (no other auth-check tool exists), making its usage obvious. The analogy gives practical guidance on when to use it.

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