list_notification_failures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns failures for all provisioned users and explains response fields (user_id, user_requested_id). However, it omits details like read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or performance implications, which are important for safe invocation.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: the action, the parameter clarification, and the response structure. No words are wasted.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and response fields. However, it lacks details on expected response format (array?), pagination, or error cases. While adequate for simple usage, it could be more complete given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema already describes the parameter as 'UserCompany.id of the partner.' The description adds significant value by clarifying that the ID is the partner's company ID and that the call returns failures for all underlying provisioned users, enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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 states that the tool lists failed webhook deliveries for a partner's company user. It specifies the resource (failed webhook deliveries) and the scope (per partner company). The name alone suggests listing, and the description elaborates uniquely, distinguishing it from siblings like retry_notification_failures and set_notification_filters.

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 usage for retrieving failure records but does not explicitly contrast with related tools or state when to use it over alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and siblings.

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