Get Failure Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the aggregation function. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output contains (counts, lists), or any side effects, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 that conveys the core idea efficiently with no fluff.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return format and how this tool relates to error-focused siblings, but it only provides a high-level summary without those details.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'top' or 'hoursBack' parameters. While 'hoursBack' is vaguely implied by 'recent window', 'top' is entirely unexplained, so the description adds little semantic value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Aggregate' and identifies the resource ('failed/escalated messages') plus the grouping key ('integration flow'), making it distinct from sibling tools that retrieve individual error details.

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 implies a summary use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_mpl_error_information or search_message_processing_logs, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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