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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: requires authentication, recent breaches limited to 7 days, and the types of data shown (status, error budgets). This provides meaningful context for what the tool returns and its access prerequisites.

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 two concise sentences with a clean em-dash structure. Every element earns its place: the dash introduces the content list, 'The SRE dashboard for AI agents' adds quick thematic context, and 'Requires authentication' is a critical prerequisite. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear output schema, read-only annotations), the description covers all necessary context: what the dashboard shows, the 7-day window, auth requirement, and its role as the primary SRE view. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already encoded elsewhere, so the description is 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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers the input surface. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics needed, but it does outline the dashboard's content, which helps set expectations. A score of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter baseline and the lack of need for parameter explanations.

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 identifies the tool as an SLA overview dashboard, listing the specific contents: all agents, current status, error budgets, and recent breaches with a 7-day window. The phrase 'SRE dashboard for AI agents' provides domain context, and the content list distinguishes it from sibling tools like thinkneo_sla_breaches or thinkneo_sla_status, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 communicates a clear usage context: it is the high-level SRE dashboard for viewing SLA health across all agents. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on the 'overview' label to imply that detailed drill-downs may live in sibling tools. This gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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