Get vendor SLA

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

The description reveals key behaviors: fuzzy matching on vendor name, default summary vs raw format. Annotations confirm read-only and open-world intention. No contradictions, though additional details on edge cases would be beneficial.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action and then detailing input/output. Every word is necessary; no redundancy. Highly efficient for agent consumption.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the returned format ('cited summary' vs 'raw'), but does not detail the structure of the summary. Given the tool simplicity and clear purpose, it is adequate but could describe the summary fields for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the default format and providing concrete examples ('aws', 'Amazon Web Services'). This helps the agent understand parameter usage without referencing the schema.

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 retrieves a vendor's SLA, listing specific details (uptime, credit policy, claim process, per-service SLAs). It distinguishes from siblings like compare_vendors and get_service_sla by focusing on a single vendor's aggregated SLA information.

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 explains inputs (slug or name, fuzzy) and output format options, helping the agent decide when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list provides context for differentiation.

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