beel_list_request_logs

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat them. It adds valuable behavioral context: only auth_type=API_KEY traffic is recorded, cursor pagination behavior, default 30-day window, and the subtle point that account_id does not widen the result set. No contradiction with annotations; the description deepens understanding of the tool's semantics.

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 long (four paragraphs) but each section adds essential information: scope, exclusions, environment, pagination, and endpoint. It front-loads the primary purpose and uses bold for key constraints. While verbose, it avoids redundancy and is well-organized into logical blocks. Slightly longer than ideal but effective.

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 a tool with 10 parameters and complex filtering behavior, the description covers all necessary contextual elements: the exact scope, environment handling, auth_type restriction, pagination mechanism, default time window, and the role of account_id. It also mentions the expected response cursors (next_cursor/prev_cursor) despite lacking an output schema. No critical gaps exist for an agent to call it correctly.

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 high (90%), but the description adds significant meaning to parameters: api_key_id can be any of your keys in the environment (not just the authenticating one), account_id is authorization only and does not widen scope, and cursor is opaque with directional navigation. It clarifies defaults for from/to and the meaning of only_errors (status >= 400), going beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 exact resource and scope: 'Returns the history of public API requests made by you, with any of your API keys in this environment.' It differentiates from the sibling beel_get_request_log by being a list operation and clarifies the person-centric axis. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly states what it does (lists your API request history) and what it does not do (does not return other users' traffic, does not widen scope via account_id). It gives practical guidance for environment switching ('use a key from that environment') and clarifies that api_key_id is a filter, not default. This fully informs an agent when to select this tool.

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