get_location_fail_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the response structure (fail_log array fields and meta pagination), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, or describe potential errors, validation, or side effects. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-oriented tool with a clear output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is complete enough. It captures the core functionality and key return values. The only gaps are usage guidelines and explicit safety behavior, which are captured in other dimensions.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely reiterates that the tool targets a specific monitoring location, which is already implied by the 'location' parameter description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('fail log for a specific monitoring location of an uptime monitor'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the specificity of 'specific monitoring location' inherently distinguishes it from broader reporting tools like get_uptime_report or list_downtimes.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The only contextual hint is 'specific monitoring location,' but no comparison to related tools is provided.

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