Retriever query status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantial context beyond that: the specific artifacts read, the diagnostic states it classifies (dispatcher_failure, results_not_uploaded, observability_disabled), and the kubectl dependency for pod-log tailing. These behavioral details are exactly what an agent needs and are not derivable from annotations or 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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and the when-to-use guidance before the implementation detail. Every sentence carries operative information (states, signatures, kubectl requirement), so the length is justified, though it reads as dense and could be split for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies everything else an agent needs: addressing, triggering conditions, the fetch_results escape hatch, and the pod-log requirement, leaving no material gap.

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 meaning beyond the schema by noting queryId can be 'recovered from the S3 results prefix' and that fetch_results recovers results 'after a partial or timed-out query... without resubmitting.' These extend the schema's own parameter docs rather than merely repeating them.

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 ('Post-hoc diagnostic surface for a specific retriever query') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling by naming the addressing key queryId and its origin in log10x_retriever_query. The description of what it pulls (coordinator _DONE.json stats, per-worker markers, result JSONL, CloudWatch events, diagnostics classification) makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit triggering conditions: 'Call this whenever log10x_retriever_query returns 0 events but the wall-clock implies real scan work, or whenever an offline post-mortem needs the structured timeline.' It also routes a distinct use case (recovering stranded results via fetch_results without resubmitting), covering when-to-use and the alternative path.

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