search_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Search' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds minor context about searching by content keywords, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or time range handling.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a read-only search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but gaps remain. It conveys the core operation but omits details about return values, time-range filtering, and the operator parameter, which could leave an agent uncertain about behavior beyond basic keyword matching.

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 only adds meaning for the 'keywords' parameter ('content keywords'), leaving limit, start_time, end_time, and operator semantically unexplained beyond their raw schema definitions. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('application logs') and qualifier ('by one or more content keywords'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_context_logs and check_connection, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you need to search logs by content keywords) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_context_logs. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, though the core use case is inferable.

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