deployment_get_event_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description contributes the REST endpoint path, which clarifies the resource hierarchy, but adds nothing about log volume, truncation, or paging behavior despite a sinceRow parameter implying pagination.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are redundant with each other, and the raw GET path takes a line that could have carried the missing disambiguation instead. No sentence is harmful, but one is wasted.

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?

A simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and solid annotations, so the core call path is inferable. However, with no output schema, the description should say something about what a "log" entry looks like or how the result is bounded — "Returns the logs for an event" gives the agent no expectation of the response shape.

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%, so all three parameters including sinceRow are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes requestId and eventId via the path template and says nothing about sinceRow's semantics beyond what the schema states — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 verb and resource are stated ("Fetch Event logs"), but the second sentence, "Returns the logs for an event," is essentially a restatement of the first, so no additional precision is gained. The HTTP path reveals the request/event hierarchy, yet the description never distinguishes this from the near-identical sibling deployment_get_event_logs_content, leaving the agent unable to tell which log endpoint to pick.

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 use this versus deployment_get_event_logs_content or deployment_get_request_events, both of which return related event data. No prerequisites, no ordering, no exclusions — the agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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