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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that, earning no credit. Beyond annotations it does disclose return composition behavior: the `outside` bucket captures everything no stack owns (system namespaces, node images) so rows reconcile to the cluster total. No auth, permission, or rate-limit context is given, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The verb and resource are front-loaded and every clause carries content (statuses, add-on/manifest/workload counts, CVE severities, KEV, fixable-severe, containers with/without BOM). It is dense and runs long for a single list tool, but little is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full return-value burden and discharges it: it enumerates the six possible status values, the count dimensions, and the reconciliation bucket. An agent can predict the row shape before calling.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself already explains cluster_id is a uuid and points at list_security_cluster_posture for enumeration. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List every stack of one cluster with its security posture') and immediately scopes it to a single cluster, enumerating the exact per-stack fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling drill-down get_cluster_stack_security and from list_security_cluster_posture, which is named in the schema as the cluster enumerator.

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 prescribes the entry-point role: 'Start here for which stack should we fix first and drill with get_cluster_stack_security.' The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are named, so the agent does not need to infer routing.

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