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

Annotation only declares readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the meaningful behavioral burden: it works even with no cluster selected and defaults to the selected cluster, reads from the platform database so it functions for offline clusters, and discloses that insights carry possibly_stale when scan confirmation is old, with a directive to verify before acting. This is well beyond what the annotation provides.

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?

Front-loads the purpose then the usage directive, so the most decision-relevant content comes first. The enumeration of returned signals is dense but justified given there is no output schema; only mild overhead from its length.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and a complex multi-signal payload, the description fully covers what is returned, edge cases (offline clusters, unselected cluster), and a caveat about stale insights. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and both params (cluster_id UUID, cluster_name exact name) are already documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that either identifier may be passed and that the tool defaults to the selected cluster when neither is supplied.

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 and resource (summarises the signals behind a cluster's 'Needs Attention' badge) and enumerates exactly which signals — agent state, failing/pending resources with identities, latest operation, GitOps sync health, open insights. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_cluster_status, get_cluster_insights, and get_cluster_details.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('ALWAYS call this first when the user asks to fix a cluster, asks why a cluster needs attention, or asks for a cluster health/remediation plan') and prioritisation guidance relative to other tools via the 'first' directive. Nothing about when to reach for it is left to inference.

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