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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description additionally explains the meaning of each field's semantics (shipping off until a member enables it, agent upgrade caveat, changed_at as last switch movement), which is valuable context beyond the annotation. However, it omits anything about auth requirements or how clustered state is scoped, so a 4-5 isn't warranted.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then a usage sentence and a terse 'Read-only.' The dense parenthetical field explanations are information-rich and earn their place, though the single long sentence is somewhat heavy to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly for all four fields. Combined with the explicit usage trigger and read-only note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntactic or format guidance for the parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource (report whether a cluster ships container logs to Ankra's hosted store) and enumerates the exact fields returned (shipping_enabled, available, agent_supports_switch, changed_at). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set_cluster_hosted_log_shipping by describing the read side and referencing the CLI twin, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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 an explicit trigger: use this when query_logs answers from the hosted store with nothing, before concluding a cluster logged nothing. It names the relevant sibling/path (query_logs) and the condition that selects this tool, plus the equivalent CLI command for cross-referencing.

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