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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: output is capped at 200 lines, 16 KB, and 500 B per line; secrets are shown by name; deployment logs fall back to the build log on failure; and the call asks no human.

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 short and front-loads the main resource and limits. The deployment sentence is tightly compressed to the point of slight ambiguity, but overall every sentence carries relevant information.

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 read-only log retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers output caps, secret handling, and deployment fallback. It remains incomplete for a 7-parameter tool because several filtering and time-window parameters are not explained.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to carry more parameter meaning. It explains the line cap and deployment behavior, but leaves project, environment, server filtering, and since_minutes largely undocumented beyond their parameter names.

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 identifies the resource as 'A Service's recent logs' and extends that to a specific Deployment's containers or build log when deployment is provided. This distinguishes it from the sibling server_logs by resource scope, though it does not use an explicit retrieval verb.

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 a conditional usage cue: with a deployment, it returns that Deployment's containers or failed build log. However, it does not say when to choose this over service_status, service_inspect, deployment_show, server_logs, or other diagnostic siblings, nor does it state exclusions.

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