search_etl_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention 'read-only', which is a useful safety signal, but it omits query behavior, error handling, rate limits, and what 'configured' backend means. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is not a tautology and is easily parsed, though it is sparse in content—an issue better captured by other dimensions.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and a sibling search tool, the description is barely more than a label. It leaves out query format, limit semantics, relationship to search_runbooks, and any details about what the output schema provides. An agent could identify the tool's purpose but would be guessing on invocation details.

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 description must compensate, but neither 'query' nor 'limit' is mentioned. The word 'Search' weakly implies query is a search string, but there is no explanation of query syntax or limit's default behavior. The description completely fails to make up for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('configured read-only ETL log backend'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search_runbooks, but the resource distinction is strong enough that an agent can infer the difference.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_runbooks also performs a search, but the description neither contrasts them nor states conditions for choosing one. Only a weak implied context (when you need ETL logs) exists.

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