check_delivery_failures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that the tool separates failure categories; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how it determines 'current,' what the return value looks like, or whether it queries a specific service.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is stated directly. It is concise and well-structured, though brevity comes at the cost of needed context captured in other dimensions.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and an unexplained one-parameter input, the description leaves too much unspecifed. An agent cannot reliably predict the returned shape, the meaning of the two failure categories, or the effect of lookback_days in this sibling-heavy tool list.

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 0%, and the description never mentions lookback_days orthe relevant time window. The schema provides default/min/max constraints, but the description does not connect this parameter to the tool's behavior, leaving the agent without suffcient semantic grounding.

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 names a specific action, 'separate,' and a resource, 'delivery failures,' and introduces two categories. However, the terms 'intended-delivery failures' and 'execution failures' are not defined, and it is unclear whether the tool returns a report, a classification, or a filtered 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_recent_failures, find_missed_or_overdue_runs, or summarize_degraded_successes. The phrase 'current intended-delivery failures' implies a diagnostic use case, but explicit selection criteria and exclusions are missing.

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