logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces it with 'Changes nothing.' Beyond that it discloses pagination behavior (cursor line when there is more), the private download link option, and the empty result when logging is disabled for the profile. It stops short of stating rate limits or retention, but the edge cases it does cover are the ones an agent would otherwise guess wrong.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then routing guidance, then behavior. Every sentence does work, though the final sentence on cursor/download/empty state is dense and partly overlaps the output schema.

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 an 11-parameter, all-optional search tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: scope, sibling routing, pagination and empty-state behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 11 parameters, including defaults, ranges and enum-like values, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only restates output fields (time, status, domain, device, block reason) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search a profile's query log') and immediately specifies the return shape: one DNS query per line with time (UTC), status, domain, device and block reason, newest first. It also names the sibling tools it is not (watch_logs, analytics, check_domain), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit use cases ('see what a device looked up or why something was blocked earlier') and three named alternatives with the condition that selects each: watch_logs for live queries, analytics for totals, check_domain for a single domain test. Nothing is left to inference.

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