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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals ordering (worst uptime first, providers with no checks last), data freshness (materialized hourly by batch runner), and pagination (next_cursor always null). These are non-obvious behavioral details that help the agent set expectations.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes the data returned and ordering, and the third covers materialization and pagination. Every sentence carries meaningful information.

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 this is a simple list endpoint with one optional parameter, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is included, the ordering, freshness, and pagination behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single `period` parameter, fully explaining the 30d/90d options and default. The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'List provider SLA scorecards,' using a specific verb and resource, then elaborates on the exact contents (checks-weighted uptime, incident count, downtime minutes, worst host). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_provider_sla_by_key, which would target a single provider.

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 implies usage for viewing all providers' SLA scorecards over a trailing period and notes the hourly materialization, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer get_provider_sla_by_key for a specific provider, so the guidance is only implied.

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