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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is disclosed externally. The description adds that the response includes status, which is useful, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior, result ordering, or response shape beyond what the schema already indicates. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends the annotation-provided behavior.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, adds clarifying detail in parentheses, and ends with the HTTP endpoint for reference. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase earns its place.

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 list operation with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It identifies the resource, scope, and included status field. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the overall response structure (e.g., an array of addon objects), but this is a list endpoint and the title conveys that sufficiently.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning beyond the schema: it mentions projectId implicitly via the endpoint but does not explain pagination parameters or their semantics. Since the schema already fully documents all four parameters, the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'addons', and clarifies that these are 'managed databases / services' scoped to 'a project'. It also mentions 'with their status', providing additional specificity. This distinguishes it from the sibling northflank_get_addon, which retrieves a single addon, and from other list_* tools which target different resources.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to enumerate addons within a project. However, it does not explicitly contrast with northflank_get_addon or state when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives. The usage context is clear but not proactive about routing away from siblings.

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