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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's added value is the return content: log lines with message and timestamp. That is meaningful for a tool with no output schema, though ordering, truncation, and any rate limits remain undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the action and return content, followed by provenance and service identifier. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 read-only log retrieval with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotation-declared safety, the description covers the resource, the required digest source, and the shape of returned data. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so project_id, build_id, step_digest, page_size, and page_token are all self-documented. The description reinforces the provenance of step_digest but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Get the log lines ... of one container-build step'), narrows scope to a single step, and discloses the payload shape (message + timestamp). Naming the container-build step also distinguishes it from the CI-job log sibling depot_ci_get_job_logs.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite for the key parameter ('identified by its digest from depot_get_build_steps'), telling the agent which sibling to call first. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or an alternative route to logs, so it is strong context rather than full routing rules.

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