query_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are limited or paginated, what time range NRQL defaults to, or what auth/scope is required for the account.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact arg list. The docstring-style 'Args:' block is a bit ceremonial but each line carries parameter information.

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?

For a two-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the parameters adequately but omits result shape, row/result limits, and pagination behavior. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'query' is explained as an NRQL string with a concrete example, and 'account_id' is described as taking a default from an environment variable. This is meaningful context the bare schema lacks, though the example query targets 'Transaction' rather than a log table, which is slightly off for a log tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Query New Relic logs using NRQL'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so 5 is not reachable, but the purpose itself is crisp.

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?

It says the tool uses NRQL but gives no guidance on when to use it versus other retrieval tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent gets the mechanism but not the selection criteria.

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