Which apiVersion does a kind need?

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world lookup, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the response semantics: newest is the default, older versions carry deprecation and removal dates, and a named version yields a status of served/deprecated/removed plus a replacement.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the input forms and the default-to-newest behavior are front-loaded. It reads as a compressed spec rather than prose, which suits an agent consumer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no exhaustive explanation, yet the description still characterizes the shape of the answer. The only real hole is the unexplained 'kubernetes_version' parameter; otherwise an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the accepted format of the required 'kinds' entries (bare kind or apiVersion/kind pair), but says nothing about the optional 'kubernetes_version' parameter (e.g., whether it defaults to newest or filters against a specific release).

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 states a specific verb+resource: it resolves which apiVersions a kind (or apiVersion/kind pair) is served by, which one to use, and deprecation/removal history. It is clearly distinguishable from check_manifests and field_help, but it never names those siblings to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the input forms (a bare kind like 'Ingress' or a full 'batch/v1beta1/CronJob' pair) and by the goal of finding a usable apiVersion. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus check_manifests or field_help, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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