isw_fetch_request_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, pagination behavior, or constraints like rate limits. The one-sentence description provides no behavioral insight.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects. Key details about parameters, output, and usage are missing, making this incomplete rather than effectively concise.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the tool, what the logs contain, how to filter, or what the response looks like. The tool's complexity (5 params, nested object) demands far more contextual information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the 5 parameters (page, extra, toDate, fromDate, pageSize), leaving their roles, format, and optionality completely unspecified.

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 'Fetch Card 360 request logs' clearly states the verb (Fetch) and resource (Card 360 request logs), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on payments, cards, loans, etc. It could be more specific about what 'request logs' entails, but the purpose is well-understood.

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include transaction search tools, but there is no guidance on when fetching logs is preferred over searching transactions. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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