get_failure_analysis

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 says 'Fetch' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of work orders vs. an analysis summary). The phrase 'to analyse' is ambiguous about the output. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or response structure.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action ('Fetch corrective and emergency work orders with failure codes') and follows with the analytical purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not clarify the return value or the exact nature of the analysis (e.g., does it return raw work orders or aggregated statistics?). It also lacks guidance on prerequisites or data format expectations beyond what the schema provides. An agent may be uncertain about what to expect from the tool's response, making the description incomplete.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the schema already documents what each parameter means, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('corrective and emergency work orders with failure codes'), and the analytical purpose ('analyse breakdown patterns, most common failure types, and assets with repeated failures'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_work_orders (general) and get_cost_analysis (cost-focused) by focusing on failure analysis.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when analyzing breakdown patterns, failure types, or assets with repeated failures. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement makes the usage context clear. Without mentioning sibling tools, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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