summarize_abends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are aggregated with counts and descriptions; it says nothing about cost, rate limits, or whether the window is bounded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the aggregation, the scope, and the output shape with no filler. Slightly terse given the tool's triage role, but every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a high level ('counts and a short description'). Combined with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the relationship to lookup_abend_code for drill-down is unstated.

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% and all three parameters (hours, owner, environment) are documented in-schema with defaults. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Aggregate abend codes across recent failed jobs' with the output shape ('counts and a short description') stated. It is clearly distinguishable from lookup_abend_code (single-code lookup) and find_failed_jobs (raw job list), though it never names those siblings 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?

The phrase 'across recent failed jobs' implies the triage scenario where this tool belongs, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing it over find_failed_jobs or lookup_abend_code. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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