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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable traits beyond annotations: determinism, evidence-boundedness, signed output, and a cost of 0.004 USDC. None of these contradict the annotation hints.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The '0.004 USDC' fragment is slightly awkwardly attached with a semicolon, but overall every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values or mutability. However, the description does not clarify what 'bounded' means, how to provide evidence, or what 'signed' implies operationally, leaving some practical ambiguity for an agent constructing a call.

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?

With zero formally defined parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description still adds semantic guidance by indicating that inputs should represent bounded success and latency evidence, which is meaningful for an open-schema object.

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 ('Estimate') with a clear object ('SLA failure probability') and names the input evidence ('bounded success and latency evidence'). It distinguishes itself from generic predictors like market_demand_predictor or transaction_risk_score, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling service_sla_attestation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools are provided. The description implies a use case but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over e.g. service_sla_attestation or provider_quality_predictor.

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