Check Metrica log requests

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' while adding behavioral context: the polling workflow, the fields returned (status, parts, size, next step), and the storage-quota usage listing. This goes beyond the annotation and provides useful operational detail, though it does not cover rate limits or error semantics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with annotations but short. It is efficiently structured with no 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?

For a read-only status tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the two usage modes and the critical polling instruction. It does not detail return formatting or define 'parts'/'next step', but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of output schema requirements.

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% with parameter descriptions already explaining requestId's role and the option to omit it. The description rephrases this behavior and adds usage context (polling), but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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: inspecting a Logs API request by request_id or listing all requests and quota usage. It uses specific verbs ('Inspect', 'list') and resource ('Logs API request'), and distinguishes from siblings like logs_request (submission) and logs_download (download) by focusing on status and quota.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Poll this after logs_request until status="processed"' clearly indicates when this tool should be used. It also explains the optional request_id behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like logs_download or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full when-not/alternative coverage.

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