metering__sla_report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly indicates no mutation (read-only). However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, authentication needs, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 concise single sentence, but it begins with a bracketed prefix that may add noise. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with key information.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and read-only nature. However, it lacks details on the output format and parameter description, leaving the definition somewhat incomplete.

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 does not explain the sole parameter 'meter_id'. The schema only gives a title 'Meter Id', which is minimal. The description adds no additional meaning to help the agent understand what value to provide.

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 it is a 'Pure SLA report' showing success_rate vs sla_target and breach flag, with no mutation. The verb 'report' and resource 'SLA' are clear. It distinguishes itself from other metering tools but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like metering__usage_summary.

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 implied usage context by stating it is a read-only SLA report, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other metering tools. There are no prerequisites or alternative indicators.

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