Event lookup

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: hashes are stable per engine/symbol library/config, the lookup is structural rather than byte-exact, offload disposition comes from the Reporter routeState label, AI category is gated on LOG10X_AI_SUMMARY=true, cost overlay only appears when $/GB is set, and it advises saying so when no match returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core resolve-and-return purpose before the routing directive and the anti-pattern exclusion, so the critical part is read first. The opening sentence is a long, dense run-on enumerating many return fields, which slightly hurts scannability but earns its space.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations plus 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, yet it still frames them usefully. For a 9-parameter, 0-required tool with multiple aliases and conditional behavior, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema itself thoroughly documents every parameter (including aliases and the siemScope cross-pillar case), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the meaning of pattern_hash/tenxHash stability and the $/GB cost overlay but largely restates what the schema already carries.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: resolve a raw log line or pattern name to its pattern hash, then return byte volume, share per service, delta, first-seen timestamp, and offload disposition. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling log10x_resolve_batch by input cardinality, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a bolded 'Call this first' trigger naming the exact user intents ('what is this', 'is this new', 'is this safe to drop') and the input shape (a SINGLE log line). It also names the alternative sibling log10x_resolve_batch and the condition (MULTIPLE events / SIEM dump / batch triage) that selects it.

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