ise_mnt_failure_reasons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It notes it returns 'raw XML' (useful), but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, the size/format of the response, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. For an MNT endpoint, clearer safety and format expectations would help.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: one names the endpoint, one notes the XML return format. The [System] prefix and endpoint path are efficiently packed. No wasted words, though slightly more content (usage/response details) would justify a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only states 'raw XML' without describing the XML structure, fields, or how to interpret failure reasons. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more context about what the caller receives and how to use it.

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%, so the deployment parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no implementation detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. The description correctly omits param info since the schema covers it.

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 'Get Failure Reasons' with an explicit endpoint (GET /admin/API/mnt/FailureReasons) and notes it returns raw XML. The verb+resource is clear, but it does not specify what failure reasons refer to (RADIUS failures? MNT failures?), and among the many ise_mnt_* siblings this does not clearly differentiate what makes this distinct from other MNT 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not explain when this MNT failure-reasons endpoint would be appropriate vs. other session/auth list tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or when to omit vs. specify the deployment parameter. Only the deployment schema description hints at usage.

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