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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavior the annotations do not: results are newest-first and include method, path, status, and timing. It omits the retention/recent window, pagination behavior, and how api_key scope affects visible logs, leaving real gaps for a debugging tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded before the use case. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 simple read-only listing with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and sort order. It is nearly complete, missing only defaults for limit and any note on how far back the log history goes.

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?

With 60% schema description coverage, the schema documents path_prefix and status but leaves limit and method bare. The description's field list (method, path, status) hints that these are also filters, which adds some meaning, but it never explains limit, defaults, or how filters combine, so it does not fully compensate.

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?

"See recent requests to the project (method, path, status, timing), newest first" names the resource (request logs) and enumerates the returned fields and ordering. The verb "see" is softer than "list", but the resource is unambiguous and none of the sibling CRUD tools overlap with it, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

"Use it to debug why an app's calls fail" gives a concrete trigger for selecting this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to inspect records instead of logs), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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