opencdr_logs_search

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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing a backend constraint (dedicated indexes, no AND-combination), a hard range cap (max 31-day), default lookback (7 days), pagination via next_token, and a list of unsupported correlation fields. These are behavioral facts the agent could not obtain from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first line, then in three short paragraphs covers selector rules, date caveats, pagination, and unsupported paths. Dense but every sentence carries operational information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers the decision-critical semantics: mutual exclusivity, date scoping, defaults, and pagination. Remaining gaps — result shape, limit bounds, and ordering field — are minor but would help an agent tune queries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for service, event_id, event_name, date_from/date_to (YYYY-MM-DD, UTC, inclusive, conditional applicability) and next_token. It leaves limit and order unexplained — no max limit and no statement of which field order sorts on — so two of eight parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search audit/CloudTrail logs') and immediately flags it as read-only. It does not, however, name opencdr_signals_search or any other sibling, so an agent must infer that this tool covers audit/CloudTrail events rather than detection signals from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly requires exactly ONE selector and names the three valid choices (service, event_id, event_name). It further states when date filters apply (service only, ignored otherwise), what their defaults are, and redirects unsupported correlation attempts to event_id — a clear use/do-not-use contract.

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