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 reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not: the four member-status states and their exact conditions (pending/configuring/degraded/ready).

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 purpose, then supplies the status semantics, the id source, and the read-only note. Every sentence earns its place, though the inline enumeration of four states is slightly dense.

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 return-value burden and does so: it names status, per-member Cilium identity, and the meaning of each state. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool 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 schema describes mesh_id as the mesh UUID, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance beyond the schema ('from list_cluster_meshes'), telling the agent where to obtain a valid value.

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 ('Show one cluster mesh') and specifies scope precisely: the mesh's own status plus each member's Cilium identity and status. It is clearly distinguishable from list_cluster_meshes, create_cluster_mesh, and the mesh-mutation siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_cluster_meshes as the source of mesh_id, giving clear usage context. It does not state when-not to use it or name alternative inspection tools (e.g., check_cluster_mesh_readiness), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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