api_indexer_lookup_application_logs

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 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'nextToken' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format/log level the log messages are returned in. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. For a simple lookup tool, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'application' means in this Algorand context, what format the logs are returned in, whether this is a paginated API, or any error conditions. The agent would need to infer too much from the parameter names alone.

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 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how minRound/maxRound interact).

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 'Get application log messages' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('application log messages'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'application' refers to in this context (Algorand smart contracts) and doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_lookup_applications' or 'api_indexer_lookup_account_transactions', which also deal with application-related data.

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 many sibling tools available for querying application data, transactions, and accounts, there's no indication of whether this is the primary method for accessing logs, when it should be preferred over other lookup tools, or any prerequisites for its use.

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