get_log_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it discloses the return payload fields and the Enterprise plan requirement that may cause a 403. This gives the agent important behavioral and error-handling context without contradicting the structured hints.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: function and return value, usage distinction, and access restriction. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any filler. This is a model of concise, high-signal writing.

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 tool with one required parameter, a well-populated schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, this description provides all necessary context: what it retrieves, when to use it, and what plan is required. There are no significant gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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?

The schema fully covers the single parameter export_id with a description ('The unique ID of the log export'). The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax or format detail, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool's simple structure does not require further elaboration.

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 specific action ('Fetch one log export job by export_id') and the resource (a single log export job), and lists what it returns (status, filters, requested fields, file metadata). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_log_exports, which is explicitly named as an 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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know the target; use list_log_exports for a workspace-wide overview.' This clearly separates it from the alternative and also notes the Enterprise-gated access and 403 behavior, which helps set expectations for use.

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