get_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context: the included fields are conditional ('when available'), and for path_format v2 the caller must provide created_at. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause contributes relevant information. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 single-log retrieval with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers essential behavior and the key path_format caveat. The output schema handles return format, so no further detail is needed.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds the critical relationship that path_format v2 requires created_at, which is not marked required in the schema. It does not cover the 'type' parameter, but the schema fully documents it.

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 'Get one gateway request log by ID' with a specific verb, resource, and scope, and lists the included payload elements (request, response, usage, cost, metadata). It distinguishes from sibling log-export tools by focusing on single-log retrieval.

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 when to use this tool: when retrieving a specific gateway log by ID with full details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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