Get Failure Predictions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds context about output content (predictions with confidence and recommendations), which is not in schema. No contradictions, but could mention pagination or rate limits; still strong.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. Structure is clear and efficient.

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-only query tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (predictions with confidence and recommendations) and distinguishes from related tools. No missing critical information.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already fully describes the three optional parameters (agent_id, severity, status). Description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'predictive failure analysis for your agents', listing specific risk types (error rate breaches, latency degradation, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by advising not to use for current/past failures and referencing get_alerts.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (upcoming risks) and when not to (current/past failures), with an alternative tool mentioned (get_alerts). Also notes that predictions include confidence level and recommended actions, aiding decision-making.

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