search_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully adds constraints beyond the schema: searching must be scoped by an ID, substring queries are optional, results are capped at 25 lines, and regex/glob/unscoped searches are unsupported. It does not describe output shape or error behavior, but what it shares is substantive.

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 very compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds relevant information and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 definition covers scope and operational constraints well, but some context is missing: no guidance on sibling tool selection, no output/return semantics, and no explicit statement that at least one ID is required despite the schema listing no required fields. The phrase 'one incidentId or paymentId' partially covers this, but ambiguity remains for an agent.

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 effectively explains the semantic role of all four parameters: incidentId/paymentId are the required scoping IDs, query is the optional substring, and limit corresponds to the 25-line cap. It does not explicitly map 'limit' by name, but the meaning is clear enough.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('log lines'), and clearly scopes the tool to one incidentId or paymentId. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_incidents or get_payment by resource type, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 prefer this tool over list_incidents, get_payment, list_job_attempts, or retry_job. The description provides constraints (no regex, no glob, no unscoped search) but no alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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