Show Visitor Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is light. The description adds that it returns a JSON object, confirming the return format. It does not introduce any contradiction and provides sufficient context given the annotation richness.

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 very concise, with 4 sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes only essential information: what it does, when to use, required params, and API context. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality for a read operation. It specifies the return type ('JSON object') and references the API endpoint. Given the rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'Required parameters: project_id, id' repeats schema). No additional semantic details are provided for the parameters.

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 returns a single Visitor Log by identifier, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_visitor_logs. It specifies the action ('Returns single Visitor Log') and the resource ('full details of a specific Daily Log records'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Daily Log records by its identifier.' It lists required parameters (project_id, id). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like list_visitor_logs for multiple records, lacking explicit exclusions.

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