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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing. It does not state whether registration is idempotent, what side effects or state it creates, what permissions are required, or how a registered SLA relates to enforcement.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and not padded, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. A tool with three required parameters and a nested object cannot be adequately conveyed in four words.

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 write/registration tool with three required params, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is present.

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 supplies no parameter meaning at all. Most critically, the nested "terms" object has no documented structure anywhere, so the agent cannot know what an SLA definition must contain.

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?

"Register an SLA" gives a verb (register) and a resource (SLA), so the basic action is inferable. However, the bracketed "[agents]" prefix is cryptic and the description does nothing to separate this from siblings like enforce_sla or sla_report. It is minimally viable but not specific about what registering an SLA actually establishes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus enforce_sla or sla_report, no prerequisites, and no stated context. The agent is left to infer the lifecycle positioning entirely from the name.

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