Comprehensive Log Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists searched fields and vaguely says 'Provides maximum context,' with no mention of result format, ordering, pagination, limits, authentication, side effects, or caveats.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The phrase 'Provides maximum context' is somewhat vague but still concise enough to be acceptable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not reveal return behavior or operational context. It also omits when to prefer this tool over sibling logging tools, leaving a gap for an agent deciding how to search logs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all five parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about which log fields searchTerm can match, but it does not meaningfully clarify severity, resource, timeRange, or limit beyond the schema.

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 clear action and resource: 'Search across all log fields including textPayload, jsonPayload, protoPayload, labels, HTTP requests, and metadata.' This distinguishes the tool's comprehensive scope from the narrower logging siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus gcp-logging-query-logs or gcp-logging-query-time-range. The word 'comprehensive' implies broad usage, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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