seo_list_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the default 'short' return shape, exactly what each detail level returns, and intentionally omitted fields (keywordsMeta, contentMix, briefAssignments) with a rationale. This is substantial behavioral insight for a read-only list tool.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then return-detail options, then filtering. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy while covering multiple detail levels and filters.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fully documents return shapes, filtering options, field omissions, and workflow next steps. It is complete for a 7-parameter list tool; the only minor omission (brandId behavior) is already covered by the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining detail-level field sets, CSV filter semantics, and q search scope, which goes beyond the bare schema descriptions and helps the agent select appropriate 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List clusters' and explains the workflow purpose: 'so the agent can pick one (or several) to approve before brief and roadmap generation.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools by focusing on clusters and their approval status.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('Step 5', before brief/roadmap generation) and provides guidance on detail levels, including when to avoid full detail ('use cluster IDs with approve/reject tools directly'). It does not explicitly name alternative list tools, but the workflow context is strong.

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