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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the REST API source and the returned content (status, error budget, state-change events, JSON Schema), though it omits pagination and error behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic clauses in the second sentence are efficient, though slightly terse.

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?

For a six-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains what each major action returns. It falls short on parameter construction and pagination details, which an agent still needs to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It partially explains the action values via the action descriptions, but id, limit, offset, search, and body usage remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource (SLOs) and enumerates the available actions (list, get, events, schema), including what list returns. It does not explicitly contrast with the edit_slos mutation sibling, but the read-only purpose is still clear.

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 implicitly distinguishes actions by explaining events gives recent state changes and schema gives a JSON Schema definition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus edit_slos, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing between list and get by id/search.

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