search_logs_kb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked troubleshooting matches drawn from raw text, which is mildly useful, but it discloses nothing about match quality, latency, or limits on the query input.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states action, resource, input forms, and return type with no filler. Every clause 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 annotations covering safety, a full output schema for return values, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to orient the agent, which it does. It is slightly thin on when/how the knowledge base differs from live stream queries, but nothing essential to invoking it 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 both the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's phrasing of input types largely restates the schema's query description and adds no format or syntax guidance, 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?

The description names a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (the TimeBase logs knowledge base), plus the accepted input forms. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like execute_query or get_stream_messages, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. Clear and specific, just not sibling-routing.

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 accepted input forms (log excerpt, stack trace, error text) imply the troubleshooting scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative tool for other lookup needs. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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