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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes substantive scope: the exact kinds of events recorded, which tells the agent what evidence is available for a diagnosis. Return format and pagination are left to the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the log contains, then filters, then the use case. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 read-only log lister with no output schema, purpose, filter inventory, and the diagnostic use case are all present, which is enough to call it correctly. Ordering and pagination behavior are not addressed, a minor omission.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies the category values, 'text search', and date filtering. It says nothing about the required project_id or the limit param, so the undocumented portion is only partly covered.

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 concrete verb+resource (list an event log) and enumerates exactly what it captures: messages processed, functions called, errors. That content scope implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like dosai_list_function_runs or dosai_get_analytics, but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use it to explain a failure' gives a clear, specific context for choosing this tool. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for routine monitoring, but the positive trigger is unambiguous.

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