get_lost_days

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares that this is a safe read operation, so the safety burden is covered by structured data. The description adds semantic context that 'lost days' are 'downtime compensation credits,' which is helpful and consistent with the annotation. It does not disclose pagination defaults or what fields are returned, but these are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the resource and scope, with the clarifying parenthetical front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetitions. It is an efficient, well-structured description for a simple list tool.

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 list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage for pagination, the description conveys the core purpose and defines the domain term ('downtime compensation credits'). It does not mention return-value structure, but there is no output schema, and an agent can likely infer a list of lost-day records. The main missing piece is usage guidance, which is already penalized in that dimension.

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 both parameters (page, limit) already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies. An agent can correctly set pagination values from the schema alone.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('lost days'), and clarifies that these are 'downtime compensation credits' for the account. This resource is unique among the sibling tool names, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema. It does not explicitly contrast it with similar tools like get_usage_history or get_outage_tickets, so it misses the top differentiation score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. It only implies account-level scope with 'for the account.' Siblings like get_outage_tickets or get_usage_history might be related, but the description does not point the agent toward or away from any of them.

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