get_log

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add nuance. It does: 'metadata payload when available' signals that response sections may be absent, which is real behavioral information an agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of stating what happens for a nonexistent ID.

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, no filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the conditional requirement follows it logically. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the ID lookup and the v2 timestamp caveat; only minor gaps remain (missing-log behavior, whether the payload can be truncated).

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. The description adds value by linking the two conditional parameters together (v2 path_format implies created_at is needed), a cross-parameter relationship the schema only states per-field, not as a dependency.

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 specific verb ('Get one gateway request log by ID') and enumerates what the response contains (request, response, usage, cost, metadata payload). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_log_exports or insert_log, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 only usage guidance is the conditional 'For path_format v2, also provide the log's created_at timestamp,' which is a calling requirement rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list/export siblings or what to do when a log is missing.

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