Search by Correlation ID

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the ID is safely escaped as a literal search term, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention result format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or page/limit behavior. The description adds some context but remains incomplete.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second notes a safety behavior. Both sentences earn their place, with no fluff or redundancy, and the primary action 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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 params, no annotations, no output schema). The description plus schema cover the search purpose and parameter details, but the missing output schema and lack of guidance on comparing with sibling tools leave some contextual gaps. Return value expectations and usage nuance are not fully addressed.

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 adds a few synonyms (transaction ID, etc.) for the correlationId parameter, but this is marginal beyond what the schema already specifies. It does not clarify the meaning of limit, lastMinutes, or sourceCategory beyond their schema descriptions.

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 tool searches for trace/request/correlation/transaction IDs across logs, which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sumo_search_logs and sumo_find_errors by focusing on cross-reference identifiers.

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 implies usage when an identifier is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sumo_search_logs, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance for tool selection.

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