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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds little behavioral detail beyond the annotations and schema, such as pagination, ordering, or return format, so it only meets the baseline for annotated tools.

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 three short sentences, immediately states the main purpose, and includes only necessary usage constraints. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core operation, required and optional parameters, and the target network, which is sufficient given the tool's moderate complexity and rich schema. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the name and purpose make that predictable, so a small gap remains.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces which parameters are required vs optional but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('event logs') and scope ('on Mezo testnet'), distinguishing it from siblings like eth_get_logs and mezo_get_logs. It also mentions filtering by contract address and topics, giving a precise purpose.

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 clearly states that fromBlock and toBlock are required and that other parameters are optional, providing contextual usage guidance. It implies Mezo testnet usage but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not conditions, so it falls 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.