faz_search_logs

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

The description discloses the cleanup behavior ('always attempts to delete its server-side task on completion, timeout, or error') and the failure handling ('stays tracked for a shutdown retry'). This goes beyond the annotations, which do not mention cleanup specifics, and adds valuable insight into the tool's side effects. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and clearly contrasts with alternatives, making it highly concise and well-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?

The description covers the workflow, return limitation, and cleanup behavior, but it lacks parameter semantics, which is a major gap for a tool with 13 parameters. The output schema and annotations provide some context, but the description itself is incomplete for effective use without additional parameter guidance.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. With 13 parameters, the agent must infer from schema titles and defaults only, which is insufficient for complex fields like 'filter_expression' or 'last_n_hours'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool 'Run a bounded LogView submit/poll/fetch/cleanup workflow' and specifies it returns one result page, distinguishing it from manual pagination tools. It names the resource (LogView logs) and the specific convenience behavior, making its purpose unmistakable, especially relative to siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'For manual pagination, use faz_start_log_search and faz_get_log_search instead,' which is a clear alternative. It also implies the tool is for a single page and handles cleanup automatically, giving the agent context on when to choose it over the manual tools.

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