dynatrace_managed_query_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: results include event types, expanded metadata fields (up to 8), and enhanced error detection, plus the managed-cluster limitation about structured syntax.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a precise limitation. No filler or repetition of schema content, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a rich 6-parameter schema covering all parameter semantics and a readOnly annotation, the description adds the key missing context: result shape and syntax limitations. It does not fully describe return structure, but for a log query tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameters including the 'query' guidance. The description reinforces the no-structured-syntax rule but does not add substantial meaning to individual parameters, keeping this at the baseline.

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 targets a clear resource ('logs'), making the tool's function immediately apparent. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the log resource is distinct from metrics/events/entity tools in the sibling list.

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 clearly states how to use the tool: with simple text queries, not structured syntax. It also gives a concrete exclusion ('content:' or 'loglevel:'), helping the agent avoid invalid queries. It does not mention alternative tools, but there is no close log-query sibling to contrast with.

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