eth_getLogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns logs but doesn't mention critical behaviors like potential performance impacts for large block ranges, rate limits, or that it's a read-only query (implied by 'Returns' but not explicit). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Returns an array of all logs') and specifies the key constraint ('matching a given filter object'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (filtering blockchain logs with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the structure of returned logs, error conditions, or performance considerations, leaving the agent under-informed for a non-trivial query operation in a blockchain context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., address as contract address, fromBlock/toBlock with hex or special values). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a 'filter object' maps to these parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Returns an array') and resource ('all logs matching a given filter object'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eth_getTransactionReceipt or eth_getBlockByNumber, which also retrieve blockchain data, so it misses the highest score.

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, such as eth_getTransactionReceipt for transaction-specific logs or eth_getBlockByNumber for block-level data. It lacks context about use cases like event monitoring or debugging, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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