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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check' and 'surfaces past dead-ends' imply a read-only, non-mutating lookup, and the token-saving intent explains why to call it, but there is no explicit statement of read-only semantics, permission needs, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the imperative timing cue 'BEFORE', so the critical instruction is the first thing read. The second sentence is slightly salesy but earns its place by explaining the payoff and the tool's counter-pattern framing.

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 return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents both parameters. What remains is a clear pre-flight purpose and trigger; only explicit sibling routing and any read-only confirmation are 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The phrase 'for this account' loosely corresponds to the workspace scoping parameter but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (check) and resource (past failures for a given approach), and frames it as a pre-flight lookup rather than a listing or write. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like wyrm_failure_list and wyrm_failure_record, but never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 a clear temporal trigger: 'BEFORE trying a fix or approach.' That is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, name the sibling to use afterward (e.g., wyrm_failure_record to log a new dead-end) or state any when-not condition.

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