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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the non-destructive nature. The description reinforces the read-only aspect by saying 'Get', but it does not add additional behavioral details such as potential empty results or limits beyond what the schema provides.

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 sentences, direct, and free of redundant information. It conveys the core purpose and typical use cases without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and general use cases, but it lacks parameter explanations and does not mention the output schema. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable, but the absence of parameter details leaves some context gaps.

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 no parameter descriptions and the description does not elaborate on the meaning of 'level', 'limit', or 'workflow_id'. While parameter names are somewhat intuitive, without explicit explanations the semantics are not fully clarified, especially given the schema coverage is 0%.

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 the tool retrieves recent console output from interface node iframes, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions debugging use cases but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_sdk_logs, though the 'interface node iframes' scoping provides reasonable distinction.

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 gives context on when it is useful (debugging rendering issues, runtime errors, SDK call results) but stops short of explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage scenarios but does not provide clear selection criteria.

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