get_transaction_logs

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not explain what 'details and log files' entails, return format, potential large payloads, or any filtering behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that could return potentially heavy log content.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the core action and target resource in a concise manner, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the return structure, how parameters like 'type' or 'includeContent' affect results, and what 'log files' means in this context. The description needs more detail to be complete.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, only hinting at the message transaction context. This aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving transaction details and log files for a specific message transaction. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_transaction' (which likely returns only details) and 'list_logs' or 'get_log' (which may not be message-scoped), though the word 'details' is somewhat vague and could overlap with 'get_transaction'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_transaction', 'list_transactions', or 'get_log'. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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