get_failed_events

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits: it doesn't state what constitutes a 'failed event', whether pagination is handled, or if there are side effects. The limit and offset parameters imply pagination but this is not explained.

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 short phrase, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not verbose, but it is under-informative. It could include more context without becoming wordy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It provides only the minimal purpose, leaving the agent with many unknowns.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter. 'subscription_id' is required but no format guidance; 'limit' and 'offset' have defaults but no explanation of their purpose. The description adds no value 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 'Get failed events for a subscription' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (failed events scoped to a subscription). It distinguishes well from siblings like 'get_event_subscription' (which gets the subscription itself) and 'list_events' (which likely returns all events).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., subscription must exist) or context like troubleshooting. The agent must infer solely from the name.

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