get_log_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the tool is Enterprise-gated and returns 403 on non-Enterprise Portkey plans, which lets an agent anticipate and interpret a failure mode. It stops short of mentioning pagination or file-link expiry, so not quite a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: first the action and payload, then the routing rule, then the gating constraint. The most decision-relevant content (what it returns, and 'you must already know the target') is front-loaded.

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 shape is already covered, yet the description still summarizes the meaningful fields. Combined with the sibling routing, the Enterprise gating, and the 403 failure mode, an agent has everything needed to select and call this correctly on a one-parameter read tool.

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% and the single export_id parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that lookup is keyed on export_id, adding no format or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain an export_id). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (fetch one log export job by export_id) and enumerates what comes back: status, filters, requested fields, file metadata. It is immediately distinguishable from list_log_exports, which the description names 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this 'when you already know the target', and use list_log_exports 'for a workspace-wide overview'. That is a clean when-to-use and when-to-use-the-alternative pair with nothing left to inference.

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