Change failures by service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful analytical context by enumerating rates, root causes, and the hotspot threshold of 2x the overall rate, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or data freshness.

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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler. Every element—services, rates, root causes, and hotspots—adds meaning without repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only analytical tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what the breakdown contains and defines hotspots. It could say more about output grouping or how services are ordered, but no output schema exists to carry that burden.

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 100% for the single period parameter, and the schema documents all accepted formats and the default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific analytical resource: a breakdown of which services' deployments cause incidents or rollbacks, including rates, root causes, and hotspots. It is clearly distinct from generic DORA or MTTR tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 implies an analytical use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions versus siblings like get_dora_metrics or get_mttr. It is left to the agent to infer when this breakdown is preferable.

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