search_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuine value by explaining that search_term is treated literally (regex escaped) and that case-sensitivity emulation uses character classes. This clarifies non-obvious behavior beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention return format, limit semantics, or how the device parameter scopes the search.

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 extremely concise: a single clear sentence plus a two-bullet note list. Every word adds value, and the formatting makes the key caveats easily scannable. Perfectly sized.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior well. However, it omits how the device parameter works (is it required? what if null?), the expected format of time_filter, and how limit behaves. Given the wide range of sibling log tools, more detail on when this fits would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the burden falls on the description. It sheds light on two parameters (search_term and case_sensitive) with concrete behavioral notes, but leaves limit, device, and time_filter unexplained. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but still leaves room for ambiguity, especially for time_filter format and device scope.

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 'Searches log messages for a literal term' clearly states the action, resource (log messages), and the key qualifier 'literal' which distinguishes it from regex-based search siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_logs or get_logs_by_severity, and the scope (single device vs all) is left to the device parameter.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_logs, get_logs_by_topic, monitor_logs, or export_logs. The notes about case sensitivity are behavioral rather than decision-oriented, and no explicit when/when-not scenarios are described.

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