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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a list with kind, name, public_ip, and private_ip, and returns an empty list for imported clusters with no Ankra-managed bastion. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or pagination, but those are less critical for this simple read tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then adds concise context about the jump host, return fields, edge case, and usage. Each sentence contributes useful information without wasteful repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return structure, and an important edge case. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the single cluster_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including how to discover IDs via list_clusters. The description adds only the general scope of targeting a cloud-provisioned cluster, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: getting the public IP of an Ankra-managed bastion/gateway host for a cloud-provisioned cluster. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling bastion tools such as diagnose_bastion, get_bastion_health, harden_bastion, and resize_bastion by focusing on retrieval of the public IP.

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?

It gives a clear use case: when the user needs to SSH into a node or set up an SSH tunnel and asks for the bastion/jump-host public IP. It does not name when-not-to-use or explicitly route to alternatives, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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