get_sla_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral trait beyond that — the dual list-vs-report mode keyed on the 'sla' argument — but says nothing about report content, aggregation semantics, or period granularity.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero waste, front-loading the report purpose and then the enumeration fallback. The semicolon cleanly separates the two operating modes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally hint at the shape of an SLA/SLI report, but it does not. For a three-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage that is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults, min/max on 'periods', and the omit-to-list rule. The description reinforces the 'sla' behavior but adds no new detail on 'periods' or 'service' beyond the schema baseline.

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 names a specific resource ('SLA/SLI per service') and its scope ('recent periods'), and notes a second mode ('without sla lists available SLAs'). An agent can tell it retrieves SLA reporting data, though it never says what an SLA/SLI report actually contains or how it differs from the sibling 'zabbix_services' tool.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule: omit 'sla' to enumerate available SLAs, which is a genuine when-to-use cue. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as get_latest_values or zabbix_services, and no prerequisites are stated.

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