Read logging messages from a data source

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: returns logging records or an empty list when no topics exist, inclusive time bounds in seconds, and a semantic caveat about empty logs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted wording: purpose first, then return behavior, then routing to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Rich annotations, an output schema, and sibling context cover safety and return structure. The description covers purpose, time bounds, empty-list behavior, and alternatives. The only notable gap is the meaning of the optional args parameter.

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. It clarifies start_seconds and end_seconds as inclusive bounds in seconds, but leaves the required path and the opaque args parameter unexplained. This is only partial compensation for four undocumented parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('textual INFO/WARN/ERROR diagnostics from a recorded source'), and explicitly contrasts with query_messages. An agent can distinguish this tool from siblings 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?

Explicitly directs numerical signals, statistics, and threshold detection to query_messages, and warns that empty diagnostics do not prove a healthy log. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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