get_data_sla

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds value by detailing the report contents (e.g., target vs actual, met/missed status) beyond annotations, providing context on what to expect.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and key details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Description lists all key metrics and status information. Output schema exists so return format is covered. Lacks details on potential edge cases (e.g., missing month data) but overall sufficient 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?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions; description only mentions 'given month' which adds little beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema coverage is 100% and description does not significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves an SLA compliance report for a month, listing specific metrics (uptime, data completeness, API latency P99) with target vs actual and met/missed status, plus incident count and downtime. This is distinct from siblings like get_data_latency or get_data_incidents which focus on individual metrics.

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 usage for monthly SLA overview but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives. Given siblings, the purpose is clear enough, but lacks explicit guidance for exclusion.

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