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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful context about the type of data (assistant queries and failures) but doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or data retention, which is acceptable given the simple nature.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is not bloated, though it could possibly incorporate more detail without sacrificing brevity. It earns points for efficiency but could be slightly more informative.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only one optional parameter. The description gives a high-level summary but lacks details on the parameter's purpose and the expected return format. Since there is no output schema to rely on, the description carries the burden, and it fails to compensate for the missing parameter explanation and output shape.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'days' parameter. While the name suggests a time range, the absence of any elaboration means agents must infer its meaning. The description should at least mention that 'days' specifies the reporting window.

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 clearly states the tool provides a report on what assistants have been asking and which questions failed, making its purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like order status or product search. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' but conveys the function effectively.

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 viewing usage statistics, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it or provide any exclusions. There are no competing sibling tools for this purpose, so the lack of alternative guidance is acceptable, but explicit context would improve clarity.

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