get_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the payload components returned and the 'when available' qualifier signalling partial data, plus the v2 created_at requirement.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action and returned payload front-loaded before the conditional v2 note. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, and the annotations plus 100% schema coverage handle most needs. The main gap is that the description never mentions the hook-execution-log mode (type='hooks') that the schema exposes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the v2 created_at requirement that the schema already documents ('required for v2') and adds nothing about log_id, path_format defaults, or the hooks type parameter.

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) and resource (one gateway request log by ID) and enumerates the payload returned (request, response, usage, cost, metadata). This clearly separates it from write-side siblings like insert_log or export siblings like get_log_export, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' retrieval, and one conditional rule is given (v2 requires created_at). However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_log_export or list_audit_logs, and no mention of the hook-log retrieval variant.

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