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), but the description adds operational facts beyond them: a 32 KB payload cap, 60 RPM rate limit, L402 payment (50 sats), a ?demo=true escape hatch, and an HTTP 400 failure mode. It also confirms runtime_hint defaults to auto_detect. This is meaningful operational context layered on top of the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then operational constraints. It is dense but every clause carries information; the final sentence packs rate/payment/error details that are slightly terse but still earned.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers supports-languages, input constraints, auth/payment modes, and error behavior. Return values are correctly left to the output schema. Only minor gaps remain around size-exceeded or rate-limited recovery guidance.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description only restates the runtime_hint default (already in the schema) and adds no syntax or format guidance for raw_log. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs and resources: parses CI/terminal logs and multi-language stack traces, strips node_modules/stdlib frames to isolate the innermost failing user-code frame, and clusters logs into Drain templates. It explicitly distinguishes itself from prune_context_skeleton, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (triage-debugging test failures, crash dumps, repetitive server error logs) and names the alternative for the adjacent-but-different task (compressing source/prose → prune_context_skeleton). Both the selection condition and the exclusion are stated.

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