failedTransactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read/list operation, but it does not explain pagination behavior, failure criteria, sorting, time range, or response shape. 'Retrieve a list' is minimal and mostly restates the tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no fluff, and the operational-debug note earns its place as light guidance. It is appropriately concise for a simple paginated list tool, though not especially rich.

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 two-parameter paginated list, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling transaction tools, the lack of selection guidance and behavioral detail leaves notable gaps for an agent deciding when and how to call 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters (page and limit) with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema covers all parameters, 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 clearly identifies the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('failed transactions'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling status-based tools like pendingTransactions or largeTransactions, but 'failed' provides enough inherent separation.

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 parenthetical 'helps operational debug' gives some usage context, but it is vague and provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are named, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferred over similar list tools.

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