explain

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it defines the acceptable input formats, the edge-case behavior when topic is omitted (returning the index), and the shape of the response (what the topic is, where it comes from, related symptoms/fixes).

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 compact and well-structured, with an opening purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the concrete examples are high-signal without being verbose.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what inputs are valid, what happens without an argument, and what the response contains. No critical gaps are apparent.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates for the single optional topic parameter. It lists concrete examples of each accepted topic type and explicitly states the default behavior when omitted, which is richer guidance than the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: explaining a TPM log file, error code, symptom, or known issue. It enumerates the accepted topic types clearly, which helps differentiate it from siblings like search_logs and summarize_errors, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 accepted topic categories and the 'Omit for the index' note clearly imply when to use this tool: any time an agent needs an explanation of a log, error, symptom, or known issue. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention a sibling alternative, so the routing signal is implied rather than direct.

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