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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses defaults (3/3/true), strict ordering, source scoping, and return structure. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only query tool it is substantially transparent.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: purpose in the first line, then design, defaults, cross-pod variant, and return fields. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 appropriately explains return fields (anchor, before, after, queryStats). It covers defaults, scoping, and the alternate sameSource=false mode, making it complete for a 4-parameter read 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond raw parameter definitions: it explains 'strictly older/newer', provides defaults, and clarifies the sameSource scoping rationale. This enriches all four parameters.

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 returns logs chronologically around a given logId, with specific scoping by sourceInstanceId. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the neighbor context and avoiding interleaved replicas, making it distinct from a plain get_log or logs query.

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 explicitly names the target use case ('what happened right before/after this alert?') and explains when to use sameSource=false for cross-pod queries. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and when to adjust its primary setting.

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