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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It transparently discloses key behaviors: returns everything uncapped, no length cap, flattened attributes plus resource object, and no verbose/maxStringChars knobs. It could mention error handling (e.g., invalid logId) but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, behavior clarification, and a return type. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, its full-fetch behavior, and an alternative for column selection. Everything needed for correct invocation is present.

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% (logId described as 'ULID of the log to fetch'). The description adds no further parameter detail beyond the schema, but it reinforces the purpose of the parameter in context. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 the tool fetches a single log by logId, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `logs` (lean scan) and `run_sql` (custom column selection), making its purpose unique.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use after a lean `logs` scan when you need the complete body of one row.' It also gives an alternative tool for different needs ('For custom column selection use run_sql'). This fully addresses when and when not to use the tool.

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