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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful output-content context (what categories are returned) but says nothing about permissions, aggregation window, or cost, so the marginal behavior disclosure is moderate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the returned content, then usage scenarios. No filler, though the example-question sentence is somewhat verbose relative to the information it adds.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, which it does by listing the four content categories. Combined with the annotation coverage for safety, this is largely complete; only the lack of any note on aggregation scope/time window or auth implications leaves a minor gap.

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%: agentId and the superadmin-only customerId are both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no scope semantics for agentId, no mention of customerId impersonation), so the baseline 3 for schema-documented params 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... step failure patterns') with clear scope ('fleet-level ... across all diagnosed runs for an agent'), and enumerates the displayed content (failure types, root causes, agent-type breakdown, suggestions). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent analytic siblings such as get_fleet_intelligence, get_run_step_diagnosis, or get_insights, so it lands just below a 5.

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?

Gives explicit use-case framing via example questions ('what are my top failure patterns?', 'which agent steps are causing the most failures?'), which tells the agent when to reach for it. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer it versus other failure/analysis tools.

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