Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the cost overlay only activates when $/GB is set, the action-axis columns come from a join against routeState="drop" events and the cap-CSV, and exception_services flips current_mode to pass and changes the downstream next_action target.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the fresh-session routing placed first and the call-first guidance last. It is longer than strictly necessary and packs derivation detail into one long sentence, but nearly every clause carries actionable information rather than restating the name.

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 values need not be explained, and the description still covers routing, ranking, the conditional cost overlay, exception handling, and the derived columns. For a 7-parameter read-only tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly without opening anything else.

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 schema already documents siem_lens, monthly_volume_gb, timeRange, view, and analyzerCost. The description still adds consequence-level meaning that the schema does not: what exception_services does to current_mode and next_action, and the conditional coupling of the cost overlay to a set $/GB.

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 precise verb and resource ('List every service the Log10x pipeline is watching') and specifies the ranking key, the cost overlay, the share-of-total column, and the four action-axis columns. An agent knows exactly what this returns and how it differs from drill-down siblings like log10x_pattern_detail.

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 routing preamble names a concrete alternative (log10x_start) with the exact condition that selects it (first cost question of the session), and the closing line states when to call this versus drilling into a specific service. The exception_services path also re-routes next_action toward log10x_pattern_mitigate rather than log10x_configure_engine, giving explicit alternative routing.

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