list_log_exports

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: Enterprise gating and a 403 response on non-Enterprise plans. That is exactly the kind of constraint an agent needs before calling. Minor deduction because "with status, filters, and timestamps" hints at filtering capability that the single-parameter schema does not offer.

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: what it does, when to use it, and the access constraint. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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 values need not be described, and the gating/error behavior plus sibling routing are covered. The only gap is the ambiguous "filters" wording, which could lead an agent to expect filter arguments that the schema does not accept.

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?

There is only one parameter (workspace_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it does not say what happens if the workspace has no exports or how the workspace_id maps to visible exports. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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 ("List log export jobs in a workspace") and immediately scopes it with the returned attributes (status, timestamps). It also names the four sibling tools it feeds (get_log_export, start_log_export, cancel_log_export, download_log_export), so an agent can separate it from them without opening schemas.

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 routing rule: use this to obtain an export_id before calling any of the four export lifecycle/read/download tools. It does not state the inverse case (if you already hold an export_id, skip this and call get_log_export directly), so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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