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

The annotation readOnlyHint already covers the read-only safety profile, lowering the bar. The description adds only that this is a get-by-ID operation and does not mention return format, permissions, or error behavior. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action. No filler words, and it earns its place entirely.

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 tool has one required parameter and no output schema, so the description is sufficient for its simplicity. However, it does not mention what 'detail' includes or what response to expect, which could a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents logId as a required UUID. The description's 'by ID' adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and naming the resource (failure log detail) with a clear scope (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lexq_logs_list (list vs get) and lexq_logs_action, but it does not name an alternative 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'by ID' and the parameter name logId, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as lexq_history_list or lexq_logs_list. No exclusion guidance is provided.

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