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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying GET endpoint and notes that status is included in results, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape beyond that.

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?

One sentence of purpose plus the endpoint path, front-loaded with the important scoping information. Nothing is padded or repetitive.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only hints that results carry a status. For a paginated list endpoint it could note what fields come back, but for a simple read tool this is minimally adequate.

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 page, cursor, per_page, and projectId are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates project scoping and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (addons), and clarifies what an addon is ('managed databases / services') while scoping it to a project. It does not explicitly contrast with northflank_list_services, but the parenthetical disambiguates enough to identify it.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., get_addon for a single resource, list_services for non-addon workloads). Usage is only implied by the project scoping.

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