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

With annotations only covering safety, the description adds extensive operational context: log ownership is per webserver, time filtering applies to both rows and counts, output rows are capped at 20, total hit count is the only occurrence signal, error-type counts are omitted as unreliable, unparsable timestamps are labeled, access logs are never returned, and IPs are anonymized. This is far beyond what annotations provide and none of it contradicts them.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a single dense block that repeats schema-covered details such as the 168-hour cap and no-pattern row behavior. The length is justified by several important quirks, yet it could be tightened and structured with less duplication.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior, and it does: row cap, total hit count, timestamp labeling, omission of error-type counts, exclusion of access logs, and IP anonymization. Together with the fully documented input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including hours, pattern syntax, and site_url behavior. The description reinforces some parameter behavior (pattern absent yields recent rows, larger hours fetches older rows, example pattern 'PHP Fatal error') but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 states a precise verb and resource (searching a domain's error logs within a requested time range) and contrasts it with access logs and application-specific logs. It also positions itself as the first diagnostic step for white-screen or recent-error reports, so an agent can tell what it is and what it is not.

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 clearly says when to use the tool ('Erster Schritt bei „meine Seite ist weiß“ oder „seit gestern kommen Fehler“') and explains that a pattern should be supplied when the goal is to find errors. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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