sla_getsli

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context (period-by-period SLI values, whether the SLO target was met), which is modest value; it says nothing about auth/scopes, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, and the rich raw_json warning lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return shape and then parameters. The 'Required: slaid' clause slightly duplicates the schema's required array, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 read-only, 6-parameter tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, return semantics, and the key parameter contract. Missing only sibling routing (sla_get) and any permission/scope notes, which is a minor gap given the structured fields already cover the rest.

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 the schema fully documents slaid, serviceids, period_from/period_to, server, and raw_json. The description merely restates the required/optional split without adding format or semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SLA Service Level Indicator (SLI) data'), with a clarifying gloss that it returns calculated availability percentages and period-by-period values. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling sla_get (which presumably returns definitions), but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 states which parameter is required and which are optional filters, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling sla_get, nor any exclusions or preconditions (e.g., that an SLA must already exist). Usage is only implied by the parameter list.

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