get_log_export_field_restrictions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: required logs.export scope, an extra completion scope for completion-log fields, Enterprise gating, and a documented 403 failure mode. That is a strong disclosure, though it doesn't describe the shape or size of the returned restriction set.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information, with purpose and the usage rule front-loaded. Slightly dense with scope and gating clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, sequencing, auth scopes, plan gating, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single workspace_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: reads the organisation-managed fields a workspace is restricted from using in log exports. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling export tools like create_log_export, get_log_export, or list_log_exports.

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?

Explicitly says to use it before create_log_export or update_log_export to avoid requesting disallowed fields, naming both alternatives and the triggering condition. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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