list_scheduled_charge_attempts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: each row carries 'canonical Garu failureCode', 'gateway raw code', and 'snapshot of the card last4 / brand even after the PaymentMethod is deleted (LGPD survival)'. This reveals data retention beyond deletion, which is critical. No contradictions.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering what the tool is, what each row contains, and usage. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists key fields (failureCode, gateway raw code, last4/brand) that will be returned. However, it lacks information on pagination behavior or default ordering, which would be helpful for a list tool. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant semantics beyond the schema; it mentions filtering by cycle but does not elaborate on id, page, or limit. The value added is minimal.

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 tool as a 'per-attempt billing log for a scheduled charge series' and lists the types of events recorded (cycle charges, silent-charge attempts, retries, manual mark-paid). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_scheduled_charges' which list series, not attempts.

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 states 'Use this to audit why a recurring series fell behind,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined and the usage guidance is sufficient.

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