failed_ingest_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned summary components and the recent-window scope, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or response format beyond the high-level contents.

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 two tight sentences, front-loading what the tool returns and then giving the troubleshooting context. There is no wasted text.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter summary tool with fully documented parameters, the description adequately explains what the summary contains and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description naming the main returned fields, though an explicit read-only note would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the minutes default and project_id guidance. The description adds only the vague phrase 'recent window' and does not add syntax or usage detail beyond the schema.

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 names the resource ('failed ingest requests') and specifies the summary contents: validation-failure count, most recent failure, and error details. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as aggregate_logs or query_logs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: troubleshooting SDK/client issues or payload format problems. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which keeps it at a 4.

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