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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the behavioural detail: a 24h default window, chronological ordering, a hard row cap, an explicit 'there is no cursor' statement ruling out pagination, and the meaning of truncated=true. It also flags failure summaries as recorded runtime output, hinting at their provenance.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by scoping default, ordering, and edge-case semantics. No filler; the only mild cost is the density of the enumeration in sentence one.

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 return-shape burden and does so reasonably by naming the result fields and the truncated flag. It leaves minor ambiguity about whether chronological order is oldest-first with newest trimmed, which an agent might want spelled out.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it partly does: it supplies a default of 24h for timeRange (not present in the schema) and explains limit as a row cap with chronological ordering. It says nothing about projectId/functionId, but their prefixed-ID patterns make them self-evident, so the gap is minor.

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?

Specific verb+resource (read Function invocations) with an explicit enumeration of the returned fields: outcome, HTTP status, durations, failure summary. It clearly distinguishes invocation records from the log-listing siblings by emphasising per-invocation outcomes, though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the content it returns (use it to inspect per-invocation success/failure and latency), and the 24h default plus the truncated flag give context on scope. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no routing guidance versus eurobase_list_function_logs or eurobase_list_function_deployments.

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