search_by_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching logs but doesn't describe what type of logs, the data source, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, or how it differs from other search tools. For a search operation in a log system with complex parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. It mentions 'specific field and value,' which aligns with the 'field' and 'value' parameters but doesn't provide additional insights like field examples beyond those in the schema or how the search is performed. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search logs by a specific field and value,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_by_service,' 'search_by_trace,' or 'search_logs,' which all appear to search logs but with different criteria.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling search tools available (e.g., search_by_service, search_by_trace, search_errors), there's no indication of when field-based searching is preferred over other search methods or what distinguishes this tool from 'search_logs.'

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