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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavior: computed from stored lines with 'no AI', normalization of numbers/ids/IPs, and the exact meaning of the trend value (>1 = rising in the last quarter). It omits return-format and sampling/pagination caveats, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the returned fields, plus a short actionable follow-up sentence. The first sentence is dense and run-on with many comma-separated clauses, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it enumerates the returned fields (count, share, trend, level, services, hosts, first/last seen, sample). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 window bounds, relative formats, limit and level defaults are already documented. The description only echoes a couple of these (window/level) and reuses the `pattern:<hash>` syntax already spelled out in the query schema, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Groups the project's errors (or warnings) ... by message pattern'), names the normalization applied, and the ordering ('most frequent first'). It also distinguishes itself from search_logs by describing an aggregation rather than a raw-line listing.

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?

Gives a clear follow-up path ('Follow up with search_logs `pattern:<hash>`'), which implies this is the summary entry point and search_logs is the drill-down. It never states an explicit when-not or names run_log_chart/search_logs as competing choices, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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