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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only RPC' — consistent, not contradictory, despite the POST transport. It adds genuine context the annotations don't: the token's provenance (a UUID on a publication, discover, or connector-tag record), the paging behavior, and the underlying control-plane endpoint. It stops short of describing response shape or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then paging, then safety/endpoint facts — no filler or repetition. The trailing endpoint sentence is of marginal value to an agent selecting a tool, which keeps this just shy of a 5.

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 two-parameter read tool the description covers how to invoke it, but with no output schema it never says what comes back — a list of log lines, their format, or whether a continuation cursor is returned for the next page. That return-shape gap is the one thing an agent must otherwise guess.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description largely restates the schema (logs_token origin, timestamp paging) and only adds the minor note about the '2-arg view_logs overload'. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fetch the log lines for a job') and scopes it to the logs_token identifier, which no sibling tool touches — every sibling is a catalog/draft/connector listing tool. An agent can distinguish this without opening the schema.

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 conveys the immediate usage context (fetch by token, optionally page from a last-seen timestamp), but never says when this tool is appropriate versus simply listing records, nor any prerequisite beyond possessing the token. Usage is implied rather than stated, and there are no alternatives to route away from since no sibling returns logs.

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