get_service_logs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the tool will return an error, which is transparent. No further details on the error are given, but this is sufficient for a non-functional tool.

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 sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a critical warning. No unnecessary words, fully front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 the tool is non-functional and has no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of the tool's actual behavior (error). It does not explain return values or error specifics, but those are unnecessary for a dead-end tool.

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 description does not need to add parameter meaning. The description adds no extra information beyond the schema; it simply repeats 'Get logs from a service.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get logs from a service' which clearly identifies the action and resource, but immediately undermines it by noting the endpoint is not available and will error. This makes the actual purpose ambiguous—it describes a non-functional tool.

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?

Explicitly warns 'This endpoint is not available... will return an error,' telling the agent not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_application_logs) that could be used instead.

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