## Problem

`should_cooldown_based_on_allowed_fails_policy` in `litellm/router_utils/cooldown_handlers.py` combines the value returned by `get_allowed_fails_from_policy` with the router-level default using `or`. Because `or` treats `0` as falsy, configuring any `AllowedFailsPolicy.*AllowedFails` field to `0` (which a user would reasonably do to force cooldown on the first occurrence of that exception class) silently falls back to `router.allowed_fails`. The configured threshold is dropped without any warning, and the next comparison `updated_fails > allowed_fails` runs with the router default instead of `0`.

## Current behavior

```python allowed_fails = ( litellm_router_instance.get_allowed_fails_from_policy( exception=original_exception, ) or litellm_router_instance.allowed_fails ) ```

If `get_allowed_fails_from_policy` returns `0` (because the user set `AllowedFailsPolicy(RateLimitErrorAllowedFails=0)`), the expression evaluates to `litellm_router_instance.allowed_fails`, which is the router default (`None` unless explicitly set). The user's intent is silently discarded.

## Expected behavior

A user-configured value of `0` should be honored: cooldown on th…