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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the nightly evaluation, the ten checks, pass/fail/unknown handling, the score denominator, coverage reporting, and that unknown checks are never passes. It also discloses that results are read from the platform database and work for offline clusters, and clarifies that 'computed' false means not yet scored rather than a zero score.

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 purpose, score computation, and usage triggers are front-loaded, and the long enumeration of checks is useful for defining the baseline rather than filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for a complex evaluation tool, though the single-paragraph structure could be easier to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return concepts, and it does so thoroughly: score, pass/fail/unknown, evidence, coverage, and the 'computed' flag. Given the tool's complexity and the sparse annotations, the definition gives an agent enough context to interpret results 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 100%, so cluster_id and cluster_name are already documented in the input schema, including their optional status when a cluster is selected. The description does not add syntax, precedence, or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Get a cluster's Ankra Baseline score', and defines the resource precisely as the latest nightly evaluation of ten named checks. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_cluster_attention_summary, get_cluster_insights, and get_cluster_security_history because it centers on a named baseline score.

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: use it when the user asks how well a cluster is built, what to fix first, whether it is production-ready, or for a hardening/prevention plan. It does not name when not to use it or point to a specific alternative scoring tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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