gcfr_sla_stream_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that SLA duration fields are formatted strings and that date parameters default to yesterday/today, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only or how null/omitted parameters behave beyond defaults.

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?

Three compact sentences with the main purpose first, followed by two useful behavioral details. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 two-parameter report with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, default behavior, and return formatting. The main gap is the missing date format specification, but overall it is adequately complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key fact that date_from and date_to default to yesterday and today, respectively. However, it does not specify the expected date string format or inclusive/exclusive boundaries.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Compare expected vs actual stream duration SLAs.' This clearly distinguishes it from the process-level SLA sibling tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus gcfr_sla_process_report or the other stream status tools. Only default date behavior is mentioned, with no explicit usage context or exclusions.

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