get_failed_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval through 'Get' and lists the data fields, but does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. For a read tool the disclosure is basic but incomplete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. The value proposition is stated twice in different words ('recoverable revenue' and 'total revenue at risk'), which is slightly repetitive but not damaging.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and explains the business meaning. It omits how the 'days' filter affects results and does not specify return format, but the schema covers the parameter. Adequate overall.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'days' parameter (default/min/max). The description does not mention the 'days' parameter or add any filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('failed payment attempts'), and enumerates returned fields (customer email, amount, failure reason, attempt count, plan). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_mrr or get_churn, which cover different metrics.

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?

Description gives context by framing the data as 'recoverable revenue' and 'money you can get back by reaching out to customers,' which implies a use case. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Implied usage only.

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