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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no retention/availability window for logs, no statement about result volume or how limit interacts with the window, no permissions notes. The REST endpoint reference is a mapping detail, not behavior.

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, purpose front-loaded with no filler. The trailing REST endpoint line adds little for an agent choosing a tool, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a returned log line contains and whether results are paginated or truncated at the limit; it says neither. Parameter documentation is complete via the schema, so the tool is callable, but the return side is a real 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%, so deploy_id, from, to, and limit are already fully documented (inclusive/exclusive boundaries, default 100, range 1..1000). The description's 'over a time window' only restates from/to; baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Query), resource (inference request logs), and scope (a dedicated deployment, over a time window), which is enough to distinguish it from metrics/stats siblings. It never names an alternative tool, so differentiation is inferred from the resource noun rather than stated.

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 exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as deepinfra_get_live_metrics or deepinfra_get_deployment_stats for real-time or aggregate views. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool for a given observability question.

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