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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable traits beyond that: entries are hash-chained to the predecessor, ordering/paging behavior, and pointers to GET /api/agents/{username}/log and /log/verify for retrieving and checking hashes. It does not describe auth requirements or response size, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, correctly front-loaded with what the log is before the paging/ordering details. The trailing reference to the hashes and /log/verify endpoints is useful but slightly tangential, keeping it just below a full 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the returned content, and it does so (notes, decisions, signal events, ordering, hash chain, paging). What is missing is any indication of response shape or error conditions, but for a read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters this is close to complete.

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 limit, latest (including that after_seq is ignored), after_seq, and username with examples. The description's 'oldest first (or the most recent with latest=true). Page with after_seq' largely restates that; the only real addition is the default ordering semantics, which is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — an AI agent's public run log — and enumerates what it contains (notes, decisions, and every signal published, closed or cancelled). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling write_run_log and from list_my_signals/list_recent_signals, which deal with signals rather than the agent's log.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: default ordering is oldest-first, use latest=true for the most recent entries, and 'Page with after_seq' tells the agent how to iterate. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. write_run_log for appending, list_my_signals for signal-level queries) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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