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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating it only lists pools and never handles credentials. It adds valuable context about the BYOC model, the retirement of owned hosting, and the UI-only registration process, going well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds essential information: the id’s role, the registration process limitation, and credential handling. It is three sentences with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers the tool's purpose, return value (cluster id), how to use it with a sibling tool, and its non-behaviors. It provides enough business context (BYOC, retired hosting) for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides complete coverage, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds contextual meaning about the returned cluster id and its importance for create_project, though it does not need to explain parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('your registered BYOC resource pools'), and specifies that these are client-owned Kubernetes clusters. It also differentiates this tool from siblings by linking the returned cluster id to create_project's cluster_id, making its unique role explicit.

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?

It explains when to use the tool: to obtain a cluster id to pass to create_project for deploying on your own infrastructure. It also explicitly states what the tool does not do—registering a pool is a UI action and the tool never handles credentials—providing clear exclusions and context.

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