Get Issue SLA

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by listing the environment variables that control working hours, which affects calculation results, and by enumerating available metrics. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or response structure (covered by output schema).

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by metric examples and a structured env var list. Each sentence serves a purpose; no redundant information.

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 the presence of an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function, configuration, and metric types. It doesn't cover usage guidance or edge cases, but for a read-only metric calculator, this is adequate.

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 100% coverage, with all four parameters fully described. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only references the env var list globally. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Calculate SLA metrics for a Jira issue,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (which fetches issue details) and jira_get_issue_dates (which likely returns raw dates). It lists example metrics, reinforcing its unique purpose.

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 computing time-based SLA metrics but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It doesn't state when to use this versus other issue tools, leaving the agent to infer from the verb 'calculate' and metric names. No exclusions or comparisons are made.

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