action_log_get_by_parameters_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-mode behavior, default values, error conditions, and that the legacy path returns empty. Missing info on rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but the coverage is still good.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then details the two modes and errors. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. It is well-structured and informative.

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 complexity (many parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers critical operational details like mode selection, required fields, and error responses. Missing some details on pagination (pageNumber, pageSize) and authentication, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an MCP tool.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains the usenewsearch default, required fields, and that paramsFieldsDto defaults to []. It also highlights specific error scenarios, which aids correct tool invocation.

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 it gets action logs by parameters, and explains the two modes (usenewsearch). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling action_log_* tools like action_log_get_by_id_v2 or action_log_get_all_for_file_history_v2.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: recommends usenewsearch=true for data, lists required fields (sourceTableId, startDate, endDate, paramsFieldsDto), warns about HTTP 500 and 417 errors, and explains when to use the legacy path (only for back-compat probing).

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