list_failing_monitors

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Get' implies a safe read, and it tells the agent the results are failing tests needing remediation. It does not disclose whether results cover all controls, pagination, or how 'failing' is determined, so the coverage is only partial.

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 short lines with the purpose and filter front-loaded; the 'Returns:' block is largely redundant given an output schema exists, but overall the text wastes little space.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and the SOC2 motivation. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit sibling routing and any note on scope/pagination.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('automated monitoring tests') and a hard filter ('FAILED'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling 'list_monitors'. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with 'list_monitors' or 'get_monitors_for_control'.

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 phrase 'critical for SOC2' hints at the compliance-reporting context where this is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. 'use list_monitors for the full inventory'). Usage is only implied.

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