Error budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'compute' implies a read-only analytical operation rather than a mutation, but the description does not disclose details such as authentication needs, data freshness, edge cases, or failure behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and core resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no padding or 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, and the tool is relatively simple with two parameters. Still, the description is thin on parameter semantics and usage context, so it is not fully complete for an agent choosing and invoking it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. The phrase 'for a service' weakly clarifies the required name parameter, but the optional window_days parameter is not described at all, leaving its meaning and effect on the calculation unclear.

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 states a specific action: compute the remaining SLO error budget and current burn rate for a service. It is clear about the resource (service) and the outputs, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like get_service or check_service_health.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a caller needs SLO error budget or burn rate numbers for a service. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternative service-related tools.

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