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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it adds that insights carry a possibly_stale flag and instructs verifying stale insights against live state, and explains what previous_resolutions means. 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation, but the staleness and recurrence semantics are genuine additions beyond structured data.

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 core purpose and resource before filters and caveats, and most sentences earn their place. It is somewhat dense and repeats the read-only trait already in annotations, preventing a 5.

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 compensates by describing the returned content (issues, severity, confidence, root-cause, remediation commands, recurrence_count, previous_resolutions) plus staleness behavior and troubleshooting usage. 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 the schema already documents every parameter including defaults. The description restates status default (open+acknowledged) and include_resolved's meaning, adding marginal rather than new meaning, consistent with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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: 'Read the platform's own AI health diagnoses for this cluster (the cluster_ai_insights store the background analyzer maintains)'. It also enumerates what the insights contain (severity, confidence, root-cause, remediation, recurrence_count, previous_resolutions), so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_cluster_attention_summary or get_security_overview.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS check this at the start of troubleshooting' and instructs how to act on recurrence history. It does not name a concrete alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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