search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: 'merged newest-first', concise projection vs verbose mode, the expensive nature of raw lines with cost implications, and important stream semantics (Default Stream often excludes services). While it does not mention pagination or rate limits, the cost warning and stream caveat add significant value beyond the schema.

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 dense but efficient. Every sentence adds value: purpose, projection behavior, cost warning, and stream guidance. It is front-loaded and not redundant, though the stream caution is somewhat lengthy. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more scannable. Still, it earns a 4.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical context: when to use, how to avoid missing data, cost implications, and default behavior. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the concise-projection mention offers a hint. The absence of a return schema and the presence of sibling get_message mitigate this gap. Overall, a solid 4.

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 adds strategic meaning for key params: verbose is tied to 'concise projection of high-signal fields', streams '*' is explained with the Default Stream caveat, and messageChars is contextualized as 'raw body vs parsed fields'. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read individual matching log lines across one or more streams, merged newest-first.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly recommending 'analyze' for aggregation and implying this is for reading specific lines. The resource (log lines) and operation (search/read) are clear, and the newest-first merge adds behavioral scope.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'if you want to know WHAT is failing rather than read specific lines, use analyze first' and explains the cost trade-off. It also provides a concrete strategy for stream selection ('Pass streams:"*" to cover every readable stream') and warns about the Default Stream pitfall, directly aiding the agent in choosing this tool versus alternatives.

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