get_remediation_sla

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains — status, target date, applied rule, breach flag, days remaining/overdue — which is essential since no output schema exists. It does not mention auth scope or whether a missing SLA yields an error versus an empty result.

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, verb-first and front-loaded, with the record types and the returned-field list each earning their place. The first sentence is dense but not padded; the second is a genuinely useful pointer rather than filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, listing the returned fields closes the biggest gap. The remaining omission is disambiguation against the closely named sibling get_group_sla and what happens for records without an SLA.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the vi/rt/vg enum and the 'number or 32-char sys_id' format. The description merely restates 'by number or sys_id' without adding format or validation nuance, 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 plus resource: 'Get the SLA (TTR) detail for a single Vulnerable Item, Remediation Task, or Vulnerability Group', with an explicit list of returned attributes. It clearly contrasts with list-type siblings like list_remediation_sla by saying 'single', but it never clarifies how it differs from get_group_sla, which appears to cover overlapping ground for the vg case.

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?

One routing hint is given: task_sla instances for task-based Vulnerability Groups are available via get_sla_details. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_group_sla, list_remediation_sla, or list_active_slas, nor any prerequisite context. Usage is implied by the record types rather than stated.

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