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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: the required permission scope and the semantics of individual result fields (expiry null means standing, source, whether the grant exceeds the organisation access policy, reconcile status). The trailing 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation, and no pagination or result-volume behavior is mentioned.

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 in the first clause, then the returned fields, then the permission requirement and safety note. It is dense and long, but every clause carries information that is not available elsewhere (no output schema exists), so nothing is wasted.

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 enumeration of returned fields is exactly what an agent needs, and the permission requirement plus read-only note round it out. The only gap is edge-case behavior when neither cluster identifier is provided, which matters given zero required parameters.

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 the two parameters and their 'optional when a cluster is selected' semantics are already fully documented. The description only implies that the tool targets a single cluster and adds nothing about choosing between cluster_id and cluster_name or what happens when neither is supplied.

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 ('Who holds Kubernetes access to one cluster') plus the exact fields returned, and anchors it to the CLI twin 'ankra cluster access list'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_cluster_access_policy, get_cluster_role_bindings, and grant/revoke_cluster_access.

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 clear context for use: retrieving per-cluster access grants, with the prerequisite 'Needs kube_access.manage' spelled out. It does not name an alternative tool or state when to prefer a sibling such as get_cluster_access_policy, so the routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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