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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a non-mutating operation. The description adds the phrase 'details and status', hinting at the returned content, but does not go beyond that. No additional behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, rate limits, or side effects) is provided. Since the annotation covers the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and include the exact REST endpoint. Every word is useful; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple GET-by-ID tool with two fully described parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and provides the API reference. The agent can call it correctly without needing additional behavioral details, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable since return formats are not required.

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%, so both parameters (projectId and addonId) are fully documented in the schema, including a hint that addonId comes from northflank_list_addons. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the endpoint placeholders. This meets the baseline for high 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 'Get details and status of a single addon', specifying the verb (get), the resource (addon), and scope (single). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_addons or get_project, which are named differently. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint reinforces the exact operation.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single addon but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not scenarios. It does not mention that list_addons should be used to enumerate addons, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., 'for multiple addons use northflank_list_addons'). The usage context is clear enough for inference, but explicit guidance is missing.

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