metering__sla_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It declares 'No mutation,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details like idempotency, error handling for invalid meter_id, or rate limits. For a simple report, the core behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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 extraneous details. It efficiently conveys purpose, outputs, and safety in a concise manner, earning its place.

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 the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential return fields (success_rate, sla_target, breach flag) and the read-only nature. It does not detail the exact output format but is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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?

The single parameter 'meter_id' has no schema description. The tool description does not explicitly explain that it identifies the meter for the report, but the context of 'metering' and 'sla_report' provides implicit meaning. While it adds some value beyond the schema, it does not fully compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 produces a 'Pure SLA report' comparing success_rate to sla_target with a breach flag, and explicitly notes 'No mutation.' This distinctively identifies the tool's function among the diverse sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity.

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 the tool is for checking SLA compliance and is read-only, but does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives (though no direct sibling exists for SLA reporting). The 'No mutation' flag provides a clear safety guideline.

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