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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful pagination context by stating it returns the next offset, but it does not explain log ordering, termination behavior, or rate/authorization constraints.

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?

A single compact sentence states the resource, offset behavior, and return value with no wasted wording. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers the core retrieval and pagination model. However, with no output schema, it should say more about the returned log line structure and how the next offset behaves at the end of logs.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies job_id identifies the job and offset is the starting point, and it explains the return of a next offset for continuation, but it omits format, default, and termination details.

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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: stdout/stderr lines for a specific job, starting from an offset. It distinguishes itself from compute_status/compute_check by being about log retrieval, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It implies pagination via 'from offset' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus compute_status, compute_check, or other compute siblings. There are no exclusions or situational cues.

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