deployment_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds real value: severity is passed through unvalidated and an invalid value surfaces the server's own rejection message, plus the pageToken/nextPageToken return contract. It does not describe ordering or the shape of log entries themselves.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action and following with constraints in descending priority. Every clause carries information, though the severity clause is somewhat long for what it conveys.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately documents the nextPageToken pagination contract and the error behavior on bad severity input. Only the log entry return shape and ordering remain unstated, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by listing illustrative severity values, clarifying that severity is a comma-separated exact match rather than a threshold, and tying the pageToken input to the nextPageToken output field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read log entries for one deployment') and scopes it to a single deployment. It is clearly distinguishable from deployment_metrics and deployment_health by resource type, though it never names those alternatives 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?

Gives operational context — owner defaults to the account owner, bare slugs are accepted, and pagination walks to older entries — which implies how to drive the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance against deployment_metrics or deployment_health.

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