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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: authentication requirement and header format ("Authorization: Bearer ltk_..."), credit consumption/billing impact, a hard 10 MB size limit, and the asynchronous job-id-then-poll contract with a 30-90 second wait. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences, both earning their place, with the capability summary leading and the operational prerequisites/async pattern following in workflow order. The first sentence is quite long and densely packed with feature lists, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: a job id is returned immediately and get_analysis yields the report after a known delay. Combined with auth, credit, and size constraints, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by attaching a real constraint to the log parameter ("Up to 10 MB of text") that the schema does not state; filename remains purely schema-described.

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+resource ("Runs LogTriage's full analysis on a log") and enumerates the concrete stages: parsing across 50+ formats, enrichment, risk scoring, attack-pattern detection, and an AI incident report with MITRE ATT&CK mapping. This clearly positions it as the broad, end-to-end tool versus narrower siblings like scan_log_for_attacks or explain_log_record, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 the practical usage context an agent needs: an API key is required, credits are consumed, input is capped at 10 MB, and the call is asynchronous so get_analysis must be polled after 30-90 seconds. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct contrast with the other analysis siblings.

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