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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are returned by name with ids, but says nothing about pagination, sorting behavior, or whether clusters are returned unpaginated in practice.

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?

A single compact phrase, front-loaded with the resource and clarified by a parenthetical. It is efficient, though the fragment form makes it slightly terse for a tool with five parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. However, for a list tool with limit, offset and sortOrder, the absence of any pagination or ordering guidance leaves a real gap.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It implies project scoping ('A project's') but is silent on organizationId, limit/offset pagination, and the sortOrder enum.

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?

The description names a specific resource (a project's query clusters) and defines what a cluster is, plus what is returned (names and ids). It is clear enough to separate from create_clusters, delete_cluster, rename_cluster and get_cluster_breakdown, though it does so by resource naming alone rather than explicit contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_cluster_breakdown, get_tracked_query or search_tracked_queries. The description implies a browse/list use case but never states it or names any sibling.

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