get_group_sla

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds real value by disclosing what the two SLA views contain (target date, breach, days remaining; definition, stage, breached, percentage, time left) and the entity-type restriction. It does not cover edge cases such as what happens when no task_sla is attached, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and the return contents before the routing note. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical field lists are slightly heavy but justified by the absent output 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields for both SLA views, and it scopes applicability to task-based groups. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) and the description only restates that it accepts a VUL number or sys_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does all the work and no additional format or validation detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get both SLA views for a task-based Vulnerability Group') and enumerates the two views (built-in TTR status plus attached task_sla instances). It also names the sibling it must not be confused with, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this for groups; VI/RT (which are not task-based) use get_remediation_sla.' This gives both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else condition, with the alternative tool named.

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