beel_list_request_logs

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds substantial behavioral context: only auth_type=API_KEY traffic is recorded, the result axis is the person rather than the key, account_id does not widen visibility, environment is not a filter, cursor pagination has no arbitrary page jumps, and the default time window is 30 days. This is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot express.

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 longer than average, but every bullet earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious scoping rule. The main action is stated first, followed by well-organized bullets that address the most common misunderstandings. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 the high parameter count, rich schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs: result scope, permission boundaries, environment behavior, pagination, time windows, and the endpoint. There is no output schema, but for a list operation the description sufficiently frames what is returned without needing to enumerate every response field.

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 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful context on top: cursor is opaque and comes from next_cursor/prev_cursor, from/to define an inclusive time window with a 30-day default, and api_key_id is a filter while account_id only authorizes. It does not add detail for limit, method, http_status, or path_contains, but those are adequately described by the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the history of public API requests made by you, with any of your API keys in this environment.' It also clearly delineates the exact scope (person-level, environment-level, API_KEY traffic only), distinguishing it from account-level or single-request tools like beel_get_request_log.

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 gives clear context and exclusions: it is not the account's traffic, it is not narrowed by default to the authenticating key, and environment is determined by the credential. It also gives actionable guidance to use a key from the other environment to see that environment's traffic. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool for fetching a single log, so it stops just short of a 5.

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