victorialogs.search_uuid

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the default time window (last day) and the search scope (exact-value fields + _msg phrase). It says nothing about result volume, the limit parameter, or pagination, so it stays at a moderate 3.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the search target is front-loaded ahead of the window detail. Efficient, though for a 6-parameter tool the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: filtering, limits, and time-range parameters are undocumented and nothing is said about what a hit looks like. It does not carry the full burden left by the structured fields.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the uuid input and the rangeSec default ("last day") but leaves limit, filter, start, and end entirely unexplained in both schema and text.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Find") and a concrete resource set (UUID, trace, request, correlation ID) and explains the search surface: exact-value fields plus a phrase in _msg. An agent can tell it apart from generic siblings like search_logs, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type (searching for an identifier) and the default window is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_logs or search_stream. The agent must infer that this tool is for identifier lookups vs. free-text queries.

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