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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the required view_logs permission, the bounded time window (default 24 hours, max 30 days), and the behavioral difference between raw rows and grouped rollups. This adds meaningful context about what the tool does and what the agent should expect.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose first, then permission, then mode semantics, then drill-down procedure, then window constraints, then alternative routing. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 read-only log query tool with no output schema, the description covers all key operational aspects: permissions, window limits, grouping semantics, how to navigate from summary to detail, and when to use a different tool. The rich input schema covers the parameters, so nothing important is missing.

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 input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds useful context about groupBy semantics and window defaults, but does not need to restate parameter-level details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description supplements rather than repeats 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the bot execution log (flow_execution_log)') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools, especially get_contact_activity. It also explains the unique value of the log: separating 'the action ran' from 'the action produced output'.

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: two modes are described, with instructions to group by error/action/flow/day and then re-run without groupBy to inspect the rows behind a group. It also explicitly recommends get_contact_activity with includeFlowRuns as the narrower read for one contact's history, making the alternative selection clear.

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