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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'with optional stack traces' is confusing because the input schema has no parameter to enable or disable stack traces; the behavior is not actionable. Other aspects like read-only nature, ordering, and timezone handling are also undisclosed.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the optional feature is appended concisely. Structure is highly efficient.

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 two-parameter tool, the description and schema cover basic invocation. However, the stack trace ambiguity and the absence of sibling routing or output format details leave gaps, especially since there is no output schema and no annotations to fill them.

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 parameters hours and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, and the 'optional stack traces' mention could mislead the agent into expecting a parameter that does not exist.

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 clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('ERROR and FATAL logs') with an additional feature ('optional stack traces'). It inherently distinguishes from siblings like get_log_stats (aggregations) and get_trace (specific trace), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool retrieves.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that query_logs is for broader search, get_log_stats is for statistics, or get_trace is for a specific trace, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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