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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it returns multiple failure categories over a recent time window, but it does not describe ordering, limits, or response shape.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero redundant wording. The failure categories and time scope are stated immediately.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to understand what is returned and over what period. Minor gaps around result ordering or pagination are not critical here.

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. It clarifies that the single 'days' parameter defines the lookback window ('last N days'), but it does not explain the default, maximum, or minimum values, which are left to 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?

The description clearly specifies the resource being retrieved: failed syncs, failed broadcasts, and rejected webhook deliveries. It is more specific than a generic errors tool, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as get_errors or get_broadcast_stats.

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?

It indicates the retrieval window ('last N days') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_errors or get_broadcast_stats. Usage is only implied by the resource description.

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