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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the aggregate-only nature, the 24h/7d windows, and that no caller identity is stored, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the rail is live versus simulated.

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 cost/identity of the tool is front-loaded and the two sentences are dense but each carries distinct information (what is returned, privacy guarantee). Slightly listy in the middle but no 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?

With an output schema present the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still previews the aggregate contents. For a zero-parameter read tool this is essentially complete, barring the missing auth/cost details.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates that no filtering inputs are accepted.

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 resource (failure telemetry) and scope (sports-bet payment rail), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_sports_payment_proof and get_sportsbook_status. It states what it reports but does not explicitly contrast itself with those adjacent tools.

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 '[FREE]' tag hints at cost but the description gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the sibling get_sports_payment_proof it most closely overlaps with. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name.

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