search_logs_by_ip

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description goes further by disclosing a known server-side bug that may cause failures on large log files, along with a suggested fallback. This is a valuable behavioral detail beyond the structured annotations, informing the agent of potential real-world limitations.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The warning in the second sentence is concise, actionable, and adds significant value without redundancy. 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?

Given the strong annotations, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for typical use. The warning about failure modes is an important addition. It could have briefly mentioned when to choose this tool over other log-related tools, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema documents all three parameters (ip_address, lines, log_type) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 starts with 'Search logs for activity related to a specific IP address', which clearly identifies the action (search), the resource (logs), and the specific scope (IP address). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from broader log tools like get_firewall_log or analyze_blocked_traffic.

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling alternatives or state when to prefer it over other log-search tools. The only usage-related guidance is a failure fallback ('If it fails, suggest reviewing logs via SSH or the pfSense web UI instead'), which is helpful but not comprehensive. The usage context is implied by the purpose statement rather than explicitly defined.

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