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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the payment requirement ($0.005) and that it returns payment instructions, but it does not explain what 'protection adjustment' means, whether the exit is reversible, or what side effects occur beyond the payment step. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, covering purpose, payment requirement, and return value without fluff.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the cost, and the return type (payment instructions). It falls short of explaining the 'protection adjustment' detail, but for a tool of this simplicity, the description is largely 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?

The schema already documents the single parameter (tokenId as 'SLA token ID') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but it does refer to the SLA context implicitly.

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 'Exits' with a clear resource ('an SLA') and qualifies it with 'early with protection adjustment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like renew_sla or claim_breach_credit, which serve different purposes in the SLA lifecycle.

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 clearly conveys the use case: exiting an SLA before its term ends. It implies this is the tool for early termination, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The context is clear enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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