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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read, so the description's main contribution is the 24-hour retention window, which is genuinely useful scoping. It says nothing about result ordering, default limit, maximum result size, or how truncation is signaled, which matters for a search tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the time-window constraint appears alongside the core purpose. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than tight.

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 should hint at what comes back (log entries, ordering, truncation behavior) and clarify the limit parameter, but it does neither. An agent knows what the tool searches but not how results behave.

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 67%, so the description carries some burden. It reinforces that 'service' is required ("for a service") but adds nothing about 'limit' — which has no schema description at all beyond a 1–200 range — or about 'query' text-matching syntax. Both undocumented gaps are left unaddressed.

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 (Search) and resource (production logs) with a scoping constraint (last 24 hours, for a service). It is distinguishable from siblings like run_sql or kubectl, though it never explicitly names which sibling handles adjacent needs.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives mentioned. An agent cannot tell from this sentence whether to reach for query_logs vs run_sql or exec_command when investigating an incident.

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