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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the output composition and flags the un-normalized nature of rawOpportunityScore, which is important for interpretation. It does not discuss error cases or output format, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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 description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the operation and lists the exact return components without wasted words. Every clause contributes useful information, including the normalization caveat.

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 two simple required UUID parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns. It lists the major output categories and notes the score-normalization nuance, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a more explicit statement of the projectId/clusterId relationship would make it fully complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It does not explicitly describe projectId or clusterId beyond what their names imply, and it never states which parameter identifies the cluster/opportunity. The names are readable, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('cluster detail') while enumerating the concrete contents: top-20 keywords, top-10 ranked pages, top-5 competitor podium, article suggestions, and rawOpportunityScore. It also distinguishes itself from list_opportunities through the score-normalization note, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

The description gives clear context by specifying what this tool returns and explicitly contrasts rawOpportunityScore with the normalized version returned by list_opportunities. It implies this is the tool for deeper single-cluster detail, though it does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name other alternative getter tools.

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