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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds extra operational context: it's a monitoring endpoint that does not consume credits, it covers both BULK and REALTIME channels, and each row exposes requst_id/query_params to trace failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded paragraphs: purpose, usage triggers, filter guidance, and a credit-cost note. It is information-dense and mostly efficient, though there is minor redundancy between 'request parameters that caused it' and later 'request_id and query_params'.

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 compensates by enumerating the row fields, covering both error channels, naming the comparable UI page, and noting monitor-no-credit behavior. It doesn't need to restate page/limit defaults since the schema already covers them. A few additional examples of returned structure could nudge it to 5, but it is well within complete range.

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 11 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces relevant filters (error_channel, error_code, operation, domain) and explains why they are useful, but it doesn't add semantic details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the user's API request error logs') and immediately scopes what it covers: real-time API errors and bulk job errors, with a precise list of row fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch product data, job items, or webhook logs.

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 explicitly lists user intent phrases that should lead to this tool, such as 'why are my requests failing?' and 'show me recent errors'. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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