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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond it: that toggle operations are performed in the portal rather than through any tool. It still omits permissions/auth requirements and does not describe pagination or error behavior.

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?

All information is packed into a single run-on sentence with a parenthetical, a colon, a semicolon and a dash, which makes it dense and harder to parse. It is not wasteful in content but is poorly front-loaded and structurally cluttered.

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 payload, and it does so reasonably well by listing zone name, state, opt-out and public_domain hostnames, plus the fallback rule for when the org's own domain is used. Missing only auth/permission requirements and whether the cluster selector is required.

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%, so both cluster_id and cluster_name are documented by the schema itself, and the description mentions no parameters at all. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 the exact resource (the cluster's generated DNS zone and public domain) and enumerates what it contains: ankra.cc zone name, its state, opt-out flag, and public_domain hostnames. It is distinguishable from the custom-DNS siblings (list_cluster_custom_dns_zones, add_cluster_custom_dns_zone) by the word 'generated', though that distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clarifies a boundary ('enabling or disabling the generated zone is a portal decision') so the agent knows this tool is not for toggling. However, it never states when to choose this tool versus list_cluster_custom_dns_zones or add_cluster_custom_dns_zone.

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