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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as ordering of results, what a page contains, or response shape. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a bare REST path that conveys little beyond what the tool name already implies. Minimal waste, but also minimal content.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description should at least clarify what a signal log is and how this endpoint differs from the source/hook variants. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent without enough context to select confidently.

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 only 50%: the 'limit' parameter is documented (max 100, capped), but 'page' has no description at all. The description text adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get paginated signal logs'), which is clear enough on its own. However, it does not distinguish this tool from several close siblings such as get_log_signal_source_paginated, get_log_signal_source_id_paginated, and get_log_signal_hook_hookId_paginated, leaving the agent to guess which scope of signal logs this returns.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the signal-log siblings. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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