Rechercher des logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about logs being 'audit logs' and 'historique des actions utilisateurs', but discloses no additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or projection handling, which are left to the 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?

The description is two short sentences, with the purpose stated first and a return statement second. It is free of fluff and front-loaded, though the return sentence is somewhat redundant with the purpose. Still, it is efficiently structured.

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 simplicity, the full parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool searches and that it returns a list of logs, while the schema covers parameter details. However, it lacks any context about how this search relates to other log-related tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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% (all four parameters have clear descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 explicitly states 'Recherche des logs d'audit dans BoondManager (historique des actions utilisateurs)' – a specific verb (search) and resource (audit logs), with context about what logs contain. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool boond_logs_get, which is presumably for retrieving a single log by ID.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_logs_get or boond_actions_search. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without exclusions or alternatives.

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