get_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral requirement that the caller must supply a bounded block range, which is useful, but it does not mention return format or potential size/pagination issues. No contradictions 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?

The description is a single sentence that fronts the action and resource, with no redundant words. Every word 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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too skeletal to fully guide invocation. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., an array of log objects), nor does it clarify whether fromBlock/toBlock are effectively required despite the schema marking them optional. The annotations provide safety context, but the description lacks operational completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It only hints at block range via 'bounded block range,' leaving topics and address semantics entirely to the schema property names, which may be ambiguous for an AI agent. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'EVM logs', and adds the qualifier 'with bounded block range supplied by the caller.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_receipt, which retrieves logs for a specific transaction, and get_block, which retrieves block 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 implies the tool is for querying logs over a caller-specified block range, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like get_transaction_receipt or eth_call, and does not mention any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks alternative selection criteria.

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