Search Logs (Aggregated)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that output is aggregated rather than raw. However, it omits defaults, result-size limits (top_n max 100, sample_size max 50, bucket_count max 48), whether counts are exact or approximate, and any permission/rate-limit notes.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the return-shape explanation is front-loaded ahead of the preference guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return content well but leaves the parameter surface largely unexplained. An agent could call the tool, but only with guesses about the field-override params and time syntax.

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 11 parameters, so the schema contributes nothing and the description must compensate. It implicitly maps to several params by naming top hosts/paths/status codes/user agents, a bucketed timeline, and a representative sample, but it never explains from/until/query syntax, the *_field overrides, or account.

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 (runs a query) and the exact return shape (aggregated summary with total, top hosts/paths/status codes/user agents, bucketed timeline, and representative sample) rather than raw events. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_events and iterate_events_*, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 an explicit alternative set (get_events/iterate_events_*) and the condition that selects this tool (exploratory analysis). It does not, however, address the many other aggregation-oriented siblings (count_events, group_by_*, timeline, field_facets, stats_query, traffic_by_*), which overlap with this tool's output and leave some routing ambiguity.

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