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 useful matching semantics beyond the annotations: aliases are matched, file names under paths are matched, vendor names are NOT matched, and results are grouped by platform. It doesn't cover result ordering or truncation behavior when limit is hit, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then matching rules, then output shape. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it matches, what it excludes, and the shape of the return (log paths per app, per platform). The only unaddressed items are the limit parameter's truncation behavior and any ordering guarantee, which are minor.

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 coverage is 67%. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'query' accepts app names AND aliases AND file names like 'AppWorkload.log' but NOT vendor names, and results are returned per-platform (linking to the 'platform' param). 'limit' semantics remain undocumented in both places, so not a 5.

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 ('Find where an application writes its log files') and immediately scopes what is and isn't matched (app names/aliases and file names, not vendor names). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_app_log_locations, which is a direct-lookup rather than a search.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Search' and by the query-matching rules, so an agent knows this is the discovery path when it has only a fuzzy name. However, no explicit when-to-use vs get_app_log_locations guidance is given, so the agent must infer that it should prefer this for partial/ambiguous names and the sibling for exact lookups.

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