log_correlate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Pro feature requirement and the correlation method, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, whether a non-Pro key will fail, or how failures are surfaced. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 that front-loads the core action, resource, and method, then adds the important Pro feature constraint. There is no redundant wording, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the caller receives after correlation, whether the tool is read-only, and what constraints apply. It only states the action and the eligibility requirement. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output, this leaves important operational context unspecified.

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?

The schema documents log_paths, target_id, and correlation_field, and the description reinforces the correlation concept with 'request IDs or timestamps.' However, api_key has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description, leaving a gap. The description adds some semantic context but does not fully compensate for the missing api_key semantics.

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 verb ('Correlate'), a clear resource ('log entries across multiple services'), and the method ('using request IDs or timestamps'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_search, log_analyze, and log_recommend, which focus on searching, analyzing, or recommending rather than cross-service correlation.

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 clear context: use this when you need to correlate logs across multiple services via request IDs or timestamps. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the cross-service correlation scope is specific enough for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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