search_log_time_based

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'optionally filtering' and 'with context,' it doesn't explain what 'context' means in practice, what format results are returned in, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance characteristics. For an 8-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Search logs' (action), 'within a time window' (primary constraint), 'optionally filtering' (additional capability), 'with context' (extra feature). No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation in the description. However, for a search tool with multiple sibling alternatives and no behavioral annotations, the description should provide more guidance on usage scenarios and result interpretation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 8 parameters, the description provides minimal help. It mentions 'time window,' 'filtering,' and 'context,' which loosely map to some parameters (minutes/hours/days for time, log_content_patterns_override for filtering, context_before/after for context), but doesn't explain parameter relationships, defaults, or how overrides work. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of 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's purpose: 'Search logs within a time window, optionally filtering, with context.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (logs), and key features (time-based, filtering, context). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_log_all_records or search_log_first_n_records beyond the time-based aspect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like search_log_all_records and search_log_first_n_records available, there's no indication of when time-based searching is preferable over other log search methods. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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