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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are newest-match-first, the default window is one hour, and the maximum window is 30 days. It omits any note on result limits or how the cursor behaves beyond the schema's page_token wording, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the search scope and ordering lead, followed by the time-window default/limit and filter dimensions. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (job, workflow, step, timestamp, body, lineId), plus ordering, default window, and max window. With readOnlyHint covering safety and the schema covering all 10 parameters, nothing needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented. The description restates the filterable dimensions (repository, workflow, runner label, action, compute id) and the time-window bounds, which reinforces but does not add new syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Search GitHub Actions log lines from Depot runners') plus the ordering and the returned fields, so an agent immediately knows this is a text-search over GHA log lines rather than a fetch of a whole job/build log. Combined with the sibling set (depot_ci_get_job_logs, depot_get_build_step_logs), the scope is cleanly separable.

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 clear operating context: defaults to the last hour, max 30-day window, and the dimensions you can filter by (repository, workflow, runner label, action, compute id). It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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