search_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the query syntax (Lucene) and provides examples, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a search operation with multiple 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by syntax support and examples in a single, efficient sentence. Every element (purpose, syntax, examples) earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and syntax but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like result format, limitations, or error scenarios, which would help an agent use it more effectively.

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 parameters. The description adds value by providing query syntax examples (e.g., 'error AND authentication'), but does not explain parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Search OpenSearch logs') and resource ('logs'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'free-text query' with Lucene syntax, which differentiates it from field-specific searches like search_by_field or search_by_service.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching logs with free-text queries using Lucene syntax), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as search_by_field for structured searches.

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