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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the requirement of at least fromBlock and toBlock, but this is also evident from the schema. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or limits, though these are less critical given the read-only annotation. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then state requirements. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter requirements, but it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an array of log objects) or any edge cases. Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more context about the return value, making this adequate but not complete.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description merely reiterates the requirement of fromBlock/toBlock and the optionality of address/topics, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. Therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get event logs matching a filter on Mezo.' It identifies the specific resource (Mezo event logs) and the action (get), distinguishing it from sibling tools like eth_get_logs or mezo_get_block. The mention of optional filters adds further clarity.

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?

The description implies usage by stating the required parameters (fromBlock and toBlock) and optional filters, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like eth_get_logs or the testnet variant. No alternative tools are mentioned, so usage context is only partially conveyed.

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