describe_slow_log_records

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: time constraints (start_time cannot be earlier than 30 days ago), node_id applicability only to cluster instances, and pagination details. It does not mention what happens with no results or rate limits, but these are less critical given the output schema.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Each sentence adds value; no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and parameter details are organized in a readable list. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 9 parameters (4 required), an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return fields. It covers all parameters, includes constraints, and provides context for cluster instances. A minor gap is the lack of explanation on interpreting the returned records, but overall it is thorough.

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%, so the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter. It explains time format, value ranges, defaults, and usage context for optional parameters like sqlhash and node_id. This is essential for correct usage and significantly surpasses what the schema alone provides.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Query slow log records for an RDS instance.' It identifies the specific resource (RDS instance) and the action (query slow logs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_error_logs or describe_db_instances.

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 parameter constraints but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to prefer describe_slow_log_records over other describe_* tools. The description is self-contained but does not aid in tool selection among siblings.

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