logs_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that logs are emailed as a gzip-compressed CSV attachment and that there is a daily limit. It communicates the asynchronous, non-immediate delivery and rate-limiting, which are important behavioral traits. It doesn't mention any other side effects, but the main constraints are disclosed.

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 three short sentences, each providing distinct useful information: the action, the delivery format, and the rate limit. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler or repetition.

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 simple request-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and constraints. The only notable gap is the lack of specificity about which logs are covered, which is left to the tool name and context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the outcome.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already explains 'query' and 'domain' clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter details or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Request a log download' with a clear verb and resource, and describes the delivery format (gzip-compressed CSV). However, it doesn't specify which logs are being downloaded (e.g., email logs, domain logs), leaving some ambiguity in scope. There are no direct sibling log tools to distinguish from, but more specificity would improve clarity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the action and constraints (e.g., 'Limited to 10 requests per day'), so the usage context is not addressed.

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