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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description bears a lower burden for safety disclosure. It does not contradict the annotations and adds the authentication requirement, but it does not describe output format, pagination, or log line structure. The added behavioral context is minimal.

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?

The description is a single sentence followed by a short authentication note, with no fluff. The parenthetical 'why is my app broken?' adds useful intent context. It loses one point for the redundant 'osirAppLogs:' prefix which simply restates the tool name, though this is a minor issue.

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?

Given the simple parameter set (3 params, 1 required) and annotations covering the safety profile, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and no description of the response shape, but for a log-fetching tool this is not a significant blocker.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'Number of recent log lines to return', 'App id from osirAppList', and the detailed sessionKey explanation). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent logs from an Osir app's microVM'), and adds a user-intent cue ('why is my app broken?') that makes its purpose immediately recognizable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like osirAppStatus or osirAppGetSource without needing to open the schema.

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?

'Requires authentication' gives a prerequisite for use, and 'why is my app broken?' implies a debugging context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like osirAppStatus or osirAppList. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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