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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'No mutation' but omits details like whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid meter_id, rate limits, or if it requires specific scopes. Lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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?

Description is very short (two sentences) with no wasted words, but it omits important details. Brevity is acceptable only if all critical info is present; here it is not, so conciseness is not a virtue.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not convey what fields the report returns (e.g., success_rate, sla_target, breach flag). For a reporting tool, the agent needs to understand the output to use it effectively. The description is incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'meter_id' parameter. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no constraints or examples, leaving the agent to guess valid values or formats.

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?

Description clearly states the tool produces an SLA report comparing success_rate to sla_target with a breach flag, and explicitly says 'No mutation'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_meters or record_usage, which have different purposes. Slightly lacks specificity on report format.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention conditions like required permissions, data freshness, or context where other reports (e.g., usage_summary) would be more appropriate.

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