stop_list_failed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the raw endpoint, such as what data is returned, whether pagination is required, or how it handles limit and cursor parameters. It merely restates the endpoint, which is redundant with the 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 a single line and could be considered terse, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential semantic information and does not earn its place beyond being an endpoint reference, similar to a low-effort placeholder.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and a description that only provides the endpoint, the tool is severely under-documented. It lacks any explanation of return values, pagination semantics, or how it relates to other stop-list tools. An agent would have to guess at the tool's function and output structure.

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?

All three parameters (limit, dry_run, cursor_next) have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 only gives the HTTP endpoint path and a note about Python SDK parity. It does not explain what the tool does in plain terms, leaving the agent to infer from the name that it deals with failed stop-list entries. This is nearly a restatement of the tool name and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like search_stop_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclude any scenarios, leaving the agent without direction on selection.

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