iaas_get_event_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path and no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, whether all records or a bounded default page is returned, or how results relate to other event-log tools.

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, but the same idea is repeated three times across the title line, the sentence, and the path. It is concise without being informative, so it does not earn full marks.

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?

This is an eight-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the response shape, default pagination, or the relationship to the many sibling event-log tools. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves too much about invocation behavior unexplained.

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% for all eight optional parameters, so the schema already documents top, skip, filter, select, and date bounds. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Get all Event logs') and includes the REST path, so the basic purpose is clear. But it is close to a restatement of the tool name and does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like deployment_get_event_logs or eventbroker_get_events, which also retrieve event logs.

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 IaaS event-log endpoint versus deployment_get_event_logs or eventbroker_get_events, nor any mention of prerequisites or scoping. The agent must infer the right context 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.