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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the post-build availability condition, which is useful but not richly detailed; it doesn't specify what happens if the build is incomplete or how logs are returned.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds a necessary prerequisite, making every sentence valuable.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description adequately conveys purpose and the key constraint. The lack of an output schema is not a major issue since 'fetches the logs' implies the return type, though explicit details about response structure would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only identifies buildId as 'a specific EAS build.' It doesn't explain where to obtain buildId or any format expectations, though the single parameter name is reasonably self-explanatory.

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?

The description clearly states it 'Fetches the logs for a specific EAS build,' naming the exact action, resource, and scope. The phrase 'specific EAS build' differentiates it from list- or info-oriented sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides an important usage condition: the build must be completed (finished or errored) for logs to exist. This implies the tool is only useful for completed builds, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclude use cases.

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