panelica_domains_get_v1_domains_id_logs_error

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description confirms read-only behavior and adds the 'domains:read' scope requirement, which is useful. It does not describe pagination, response format, or ordering, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by HTTP method, category, scope, and read-only status. The phrase 'List error' is slightly truncated, but there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter read-only GET endpoint, the description provides enough to select and invoke it: endpoint, required scope, and read-only behavior. It omits response format and does not route among sibling log tools, but the low complexity and strong annotations keep the deficit moderate.

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 100% and the single required parameter 'id' is documented as a path parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning; the id is not explicitly identified as the domain ID, though the endpoint path makes that reasonably inferable.

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 clear verb-list and resource-error, and the HTTP line 'GET /v1/domains/:id/logs/error' identifies the exact operation. It is not fully explicit about 'domain error logs' and gives no comparison to sibling log endpoints, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this endpoint instead of domain access logs, global error logs, or tail endpoints. The required scope and category are listed, but there are no alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers.

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