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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard 30-day lookback window and newest-first ordering, both of which affect how results should be interpreted.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its scope, the second enumerates the filter axes. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields, and it discloses the 30-day window for a 4-param optional-filter tool. The remaining gap is the absence of any pagination or cap guidance (limit maxes at 100 with no cursor) and no sibling disambiguation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that status accepts 'ok', 'error' or a raw code like 502 and that route is a prefix, working alongside the schema examples rather than contradicting them.

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?

Names a specific resource (API calls/logs) with explicit scope: last 30 days, newest first, and the fields returned (status, endpoint, parameters, latency, credits). It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling list_api_requests, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Usage is implied through the filter axes (status, route prefix, time), which tells the agent what the tool is good for, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as list_api_requests, get_log or get_api_request.

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