search_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful facts like 'newest first' and 'optional SQL WHERE clause', but does not address response format, pagination, error behavior, or time range semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. It provides some value but is not comprehensive.

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 that conveys core functionality and two key behaviors (SQL filter, newest first). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the main action but omits details about return values, limit application, or error handling. The schema fills parameter gaps, but the description could be stronger by adding expected output or when to prefer this over sibling search/aggregation tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning; it merely restates the optional SQL WHERE clause, which is already detailed in the query parameter description. No boost needed.

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 ('search') and resource ('logs'), and adds valuable detail about the optional SQL WHERE clause and newest-first ordering. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_traces (traces) and aggregate_logs (aggregation).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for searching logs with filtering, but does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or relationships to siblings like search_traces or aggregate_logs.

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