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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by explaining the log_drops signal and that gaps are expected under rate limiting — behavior an agent could otherwise misread as missing data. It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the edge-case caveat (log_drops) placed last where it belongs. Nothing is repeated gratuitously.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage, and rich annotations, the description carries only what structured data cannot: the truncation semantics. The one gap is the lack of routing guidance against get_build_logs, but overall an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 all six parameters (dev, level, limit, commit, job_id, project_id) are documented in the schema, including the commit/job_id precedence rule. The description only restates the commit default and level filter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('runtime (stdout/stderr) log lines for a project') plus ordering ('newest first'), which implicitly but clearly separates it from the sibling get_build_logs. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 gives the default scope ('canonical commit') and an optional level filter, so the default usage path is inferable, but it never states when to pick this over get_build_logs or when the dev flag path is appropriate. No explicit exclusions or when-not guidance.

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