Get DataLens Trino cluster

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral quirk: an unknown id returns 403 Permission denied rather than 404, so a 403 here does not imply insufficient rights. It also flags the tool as experimental and document-derived rather than measured.

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?

Purpose is reasonably front-loaded, but the second paragraph ('written from its document: not measured') is cryptically worded and takes effort to parse. It is short overall but could be phrased more cleanly.

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 description compensates by listing what the response contains (configuration, health, status, coordinator) and documents the notable error case. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, with only the experimental caveat left slightly vague.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'id'. The description adds only indirect parameter meaning via the unknown-id error behavior, which is more about response semantics than the parameter itself.

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 the specific resource (one Trino cluster) and enumerates the returned aspects: configuration, health, status, and coordinator. This clearly separates it from datalens_trinoclusters_list, though it never explicitly names its siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied via the get-by-id shape against list/create/delete/start/stop siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus datalens_trinoclusters_list or which prerequisites must hold.

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