seq_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists features (filters, date ranges, signal IDs, pagination) but does not state the read-only/side-effect profile, authentication or workspace requirements, rate limits, or result ordering. 'Search' implies read-only, but that is not made explicit.

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?

Two efficient sentences with the core purpose and a key usage note front-loaded. There is little waste, though the second sentence is parameter-specific rather than tool-level guidance.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description identifies scope but says nothing about return value structure, ordering, or practical pagination behavior. The 100% schema coverage mitigates this, but the absence of an output schema means the description should do more to set expectations about results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description loosely references filter, date ranges, signal IDs, and pagination, but adds no syntax, format, or usage detail beyond what the input schema already provides for each parameter.

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 ('Search') and resource ('historical structured log events in Seq'), plus the filtering dimensions. However, it does not differentiate the tool from sibling seq_query, which likely also searches events, so an agent cannot distinguish them from the description alone.

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 only guidance is for the filter parameter ('For all events, leave filter empty or use '*''), which helps parameter use but not tool selection. There is no indication of when to use seq_search instead of seq_query, seq_tail_events, or seq_list_signals, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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