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

The 'Read-only RPC' line restates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding to it, though the control-plane route (POST /rpc/view_logs) provides useful context that the underlying call is a POST despite being read-only. No output schema exists and the description says nothing about the shape of returned log lines, pagination limits, or retention, so meaningful behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and action. The trailing endpoint detail is low-value trivia for an agent calling an RPC tool, but it costs almost nothing in length.

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?

Parameters and safety profile are well covered, but with no output schema the description should describe the returned log lines (fields, ordering, pagination behavior), which it omits entirely. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for interpreting results.

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% and the schema descriptions already explain both the UUID source and the ISO 8601 semantics of last_logged_at. The description reinforces that the timestamp enables paging but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the log lines for a job') and immediately identifies the key input, the logs_token. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool, which are all catalog/draft/tenant management operations, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear context for use: the token is sourced from a publication, discover, or connector-tag record, and the timestamp parameter is framed as optional paging. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous for a log-fetch tool.

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