search_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic purpose, omitting details on read-only nature, performance, authentication, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 sentence, concise but not optimally structured. It lacks front-loading of key information such as the required 'logsDir' parameter.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination (limit/offset), or the hierarchy of activity relationships, which are crucial for proper tool usage.

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 has 15 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'date ranges, text search, and activity relationships', which hints at some parameters (startDate, endDate, searchText, parentId, relatedId), but fails to explain most parameters or their format (e.g., logsDir, logFilePrefix, limit, offset). The compensation is insufficient.

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 uses the verb 'search and filter' on 'activity logs', clearly stating the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'get_log_files' and 'log_activity', leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage for searching logs with criteria like date ranges and text search, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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