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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only restates purpose. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data it checks, what the response looks like, or any side effects. The Art. 30 reference adds domain context but not behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It earns its place by conveying purpose and domain context efficiently.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and partially documented params, the description is too thin. It does not explain return formats, optionality of filters, or how Art. 30 verification is performed. An agent would likely need to inspect schemas or make assumptions.

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 coverage is 50%: 'provider' has a description while 'entity_id' does not. The description reinforces the provider filter ('per provider') but adds no meaning for entity_id. Since coverage is mid-range, the description provides some value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states the tool checks SLA compliance per provider and references Art. 30 contract clause verification, making the resource and scope explicit. It is distinct from sibling tools like health_check or cloud_status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides context ('per provider') but no guidance on when to use it versus siblings like health_check or cloud_incidents. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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