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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the categories of log lines available, but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, ordering, default limits, or auth requirements. It adds real content context but leaves operational behavior unstated.

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 tight sentences with the resource front-loaded and the filtering capability second; nothing is wasted. It could be slightly more explicit, but the structure is efficient and well-ordered.

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 6-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on what it returns but omits how it behaves (ordering, span limits, pagination). An agent can invoke it, but key operational details are missing.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning only for grep ('filter by text') and stream ('filter by stream'), while limit and since remain only in the schema. It marginally enriches the schema but does not fully compensate for the uncovered 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?

States the resource (logs for an environment) and enumerates the specific line sources it returns (app stdout/stderr, build, cron, system), so an agent can tell it apart from metrics.get or requests.query. The verb is only implied (query/retrieve), which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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?

The description implies you use this to inspect environment output and mentions two filtering axes, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing it over sibling query tools like metrics.get or requests.query. Usage is inferable only.

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