web_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it explains what an event record contains and hints at a downstream action (resetting a learned tier). It stops short of noting pagination or volume characteristics, so it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two view modes, then the sibling contrast. The parenthetical about forget_tier is somewhat dense, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers enough about what is reported (which tier answered, which wall appeared, how long it took) for an agent to interpret results. A read-only, zero-required-parameter history tool does not need much more, though return volume is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by giving semantic meaning to the 'summary' value — the signal of a learned tier gone wrong — which the schema merely labels as 'recent (default) or summary'. It does not clarify limit, domain, or since_secs 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?

States a specific verb and resource — reporting past activity per domain — and enumerates the payload (tier, wall, duration). It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling web_status ('web_status shows the current state; this is the history'), so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names both modes and their selection criteria: 'view=summary shows domains that are half blocked or slow... view=recent lists the last events.' It also routes to the sibling alternative and even names the remediation tool (web_status forget_tier) for the condition summary is meant to surface.

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