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

The supplied annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: newest-first ordering, the 50-record cap, that each item names its v1 category, HTTP status when a response arrived, the schedule and occurrence to open, and the 90-day retention with retainedFrom as the earliest listed instant. Return shape is partly left to the output schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and ordering, then item shape, then retention. No filler, though the middle sentence packs several distinct facts together and could be split for easier scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable, though the description does so anyway. The real shortfall is filtering: an agent is told the window but not how tier, endpoint, or category semantics change results, which matters for a six-parameter read with no schema descriptions.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It implies the from/to window and the 50 cap on limit but never clarifies date format/range expectations, the tier values (bulk vs realtime), the endpoint filter or the 'none' sentinel, or what the category enum members mean beyond 'version 1 category'. With six parameters and two enums, this is a substantial gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('newest failed or unsent attempts in a window'), plus ordering ('newest first') and a cap ('at most 50'), which is enough to distinguish it from a general attempts read. It never names a sibling, so the boundary with attempts_search, attempts_list, or statusdeliveries_list 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the failure-inspection view for a time window, but the description never says when to prefer it over attempts_search, attempts_list, or activity_read. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are given.

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