get_cluster_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return surface (progress percentage, markdown monograph, intermediate summaries), which is the most useful thing an agent could learn here, but says nothing about payload size, permissions, or whether these clusters are user-scoped, so a read-heavy call's cost is invisible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. The four-item payload list is dense but each item is informative, so nothing is wasted.

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?

Absent annotations and with no output schema, the description does the minimum: it names what comes back so an agent knows the shape of the response. It leaves open the practical concerns for a potentially large document fetch — expected magnitude, whether the markdown is truncated, and how this differs from the summary/sub-report tools.

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 all three parameters (id, include_summaries, include_sub_reports) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's mention of "intermediate summaries" and "complete" content loosely gestures at the two inclusion flags but adds no format or default guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 ("Retrieve") with a named resource (scholarly astrophysics cluster report) and enumerates the payload: report content, progress percentage, markdown monograph, and intermediate summaries. That distinguishes it reasonably from list_*/get_report_summary siblings by signalling a full-report fetch, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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: the word "complete" suggests calling this when you want the whole report rather than a single summary or sub-report. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools (get_report_summary, get_report_sub_report) that cover the partial cases.

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