search_model_calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the result ordering ('most recent first'), which is real information the agent cannot get elsewhere since there is no output schema. It does not disclose read-only nature, permissions/auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return behavior. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 7-parameter, all-optional read tool, the description covers what it does, that filters are optional, and the ordering of results. It stops short of describing the shape of a call record (no output schema exists) or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter (from, to, limit, userId, project, modelName, environment) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general notion of 'optional filters' and no syntax, defaults, or combination semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('logged model calls') and states the scope ('optional filters'). It is distinguishable from siblings conceptually, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_session_calls or get_aggregate_metrics, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 word 'optional' implies all filters are optional and omitting them returns a broad result set, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_session_calls (session-scoped) or get_aggregate_metrics (aggregates), and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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