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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'container logs', and critically never resolves whether this is a snapshot or a follow-stream — 'tail' implies streaming while the `since` cursor implies discrete pages. It also says nothing about log retention, truncation, or default limits.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded and readable. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than economical — the brevity costs information an agent needs.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition should explain pagination, cursor reuse, and limit semantics. Instead the agent must guess whether results are truncated, how to page, and what 'tail' actually returns.

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 only 33%: `since` is documented as a cursor but `briq` and `limit` have no description (limit even carries a bizarre negative minimum with no explanation of default or meaning). The description contributes zero parameter information to close that gap.

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: 'Tail the container logs of a briq.' An agent can tell this reads logs rather than executing code (briq_exec) or reporting state (briq_status). However, it never names a sibling or clarifies scope, and 'tail' ambiguously suggests a live stream when the schema shows a paged/cursor read.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With 20 siblings including briq_exec_result, briq_status, and briq_docs, the agent gets no help deciding when logs are the right source versus those alternatives.

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