get_request_sla_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not mention error handling (e.g., missing SLA), authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient to inform safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and two lines for parameter explanations. No extraneous information, no redundant phrases. It is front-loaded with the core operation, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. Every part earns 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 that an output schema exists (so return structure is documented elsewhere), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It does not explain the return shape or common error cases, but for a simple lookup tool with a defined schema, this is acceptable. A minor addition about needing the SLA from get_request_sla would improve 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'issue_id_or_key' is described as 'The issue key (e.g. "X000") or numeric issue ID.' and 'sla_id' as 'The SLA metric ID.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles, though it could include constraints like format or source (e.g., obtained from get_request_sla).

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 'Get a specific SLA metric by its ID for a customer request.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('SLA metric'), and the means ('by its ID'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_request_sla', which likely lists all SLAs or provides general SLA info. The specificity ensures an agent understands exactly what resource is targeted.

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 implicitly indicates usage when you have an SLA ID to retrieve a specific metric, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_request_sla'. No guidance is given on preconditions (e.g., needing the SLA ID from another tool) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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