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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description still adds substantial beyond-schema context: the 24h default window, chronological ordering, the meaning of truncated=true, the absence of a cursor, and the crucial point that an empty result means no retained matches rather than a healthy runtime. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default, then the interpretation rules an agent most often gets wrong (truncation, no cursor, empty results). No filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 does the right job of explaining return semantics (truncated, empty, chronological, log contents are application output). Remaining gaps are minor: no indication of the fields present on each log row or the direction of 'chronological' when 'latest' is combined with a limit.

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 carries the burden. It supplies the timeRange default (24h), the row cap implied by 'at most limit rows', and mentions level as a narrowing filter, but it says nothing about projectId or functionId beyond their names, and gives no format details for timeRange or level beyond the enum in the schema. Partial compensation only.

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: reads retained Function logs scoped by timeRange and limit, in chronological order. It is distinguishable from eurobase_list_project_logs and eurobase_list_deployment_logs by the Function scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the difference.

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 only implied: the truncation guidance ('narrow timeRange or level') and the 'not runtime health' warning suggest a troubleshooting context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus eurobase_get_project_log_summary, eurobase_list_project_logs, or eurobase_health. An agent must infer the routing itself.

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