search_by_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, structure). The phrase 'Search logs' implies querying, but no further context on behavior is given, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search logs filtered by service name') and adds optional context. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or alternatives.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for effective tool use is lacking, especially for a search operation with multiple siblings.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond implying serviceName is the primary filter and other filters are optional, but doesn't provide additional syntax or meaning. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 filtered by service name' with a verb ('Search') and resource ('logs'), plus the primary filter ('by service name'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_errors' or 'search_by_trace' by specifying service-based filtering, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_by_field' or 'search_logs' which might overlap.

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 minimal guidance with 'optionally with additional filters,' implying flexibility but not specifying when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not rules or named alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling tool names like 'search_by_field' or 'search_errors' without clear differentiation.

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