faz_get_log_search

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

Discloses key lifecycle behavior: the task is deleted only after FortiAnalyzer proves the last page, and a full page is retained conservatively to avoid missing rows. This goes beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and explains the resource cleanup semantics, a critical behavioral trait for a poll-style tool.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, lifecycle, retention rationale, and explicit parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (pagination lifecycle, cleanup, return data), the description covers the most error-prone aspects: when the task is deleted, how to proceed, and when to disable auto-cleanup. However, it omits details about the return structure (mitigated by output schema) and the meaning of adom/limit, leaving some contexts incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cleanup_when_done and offset meaningfully, but does not clarify tid (required), adom, or limit. This is a clear gap, leaving some parameters ambiguous, though the name and context imply their roles.

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 states a specific action: 'Poll or fetch one page from a LogView task.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource, and the mention of 'fetch the next offset or call faz_cancel_log_search' differentiates it from sibling tools like faz_start_log_search and faz_cancel_log_search.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to set cleanup_when_done=false ('whenever pagination is managed explicitly') and describes the automatic deletion behavior for the last page. It implies the tool is for iterative fetching, but does not explicitly state prerequisites like needing a task ID from faz_start_log_search or contrast with faz_search_logs.

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