query_observability_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not responsible for that baseline. It adds a little context by noting the logs are 'bounded' and queried via the 'platform observability index,' but it does not explain what 'bounded' means in terms of limits, pagination, or scope. No contradiction 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action, resource, and data source, making it easy to scan.

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?

While the schema and output schema are rich, the description is too thin for a tool with nine parameters and many closely related siblings. It lacks guidance on when to use it over get_workload_logs or get_workspace_logs, and it does not clarify the meaning of 'bounded' or the behavioral implications of querying the observability index.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all nine parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to 'bounded team workload logs,' which only weakly relates to filters like team_id, app_id, since, and until. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Query') and resource ('bounded team workload logs'), and mentions the underlying platform observability index. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_workload_logs or get_workspace_logs.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools such as get_workload_logs, get_workspace_logs, or list_observability_incidents. It implies relevance to team workload logs but provides no contextual selection criteria or exclusions.

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