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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and includes the endpoint, but it does not explain pagination behavior beyond the name or any rate limits, auth requirements, or return format.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint is appended as compact supplemental context.

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?

Given four required parameters, no output schema, and many similar sibling log tools, the definition is adequate but incomplete. It lacks pagination semantics, a description for the page parameter, and any routing guidance among related signal-log endpoints.

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 75%, with limit and source documented reasonably well, while page has no description. The endpoint template clarifies that source and id are path parameters, but the description adds no meaning for page or limit beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb (Get) and resource (paginated signal logs) with a clear scope: by source and source id. It implicitly distinguishes itself from source-only or unfiltered siblings, though it does not name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_log_signal_paginated or get_log_signal_source_paginated. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name and endpoint.

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