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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new operational detail: page size cap, oldest-first ordering, omitted platform notices causing short or empty pages, and the 'degraded: true means the read timed out, retry' signal. That retry contract is not present in any structured field.

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-loads the return shape and ordering, then pagination caveats, then the degraded retry rule, then a formatting instruction. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description still enumerates the returned fields (events, nextCursor, prevCursor) and the degraded flag, plus how to present results. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly appears to be 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 low, and the description compensates by explaining the two cursor parameters' direction ('nextCursor (newer) and prevCursor (older)') and how pages relate to them. The path/serverId parameter is left entirely to the schema's own description, so the compensation is not complete.

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 ('Returns up to 200 recent console lines ... oldest first') and explicitly delimits it from command-execution siblings ('it cannot run commands'). An agent can distinguish this from getServerMetrics or restartServer 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?

Gives concrete triggering situations ('see why a server failed to start or what happened in game') and a negative boundary (cannot run commands). It stops short of naming explicit alternative tools to use instead, which keeps it from a 5.

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