Deduplicated error/warning digest for a scope (auto-detected severity)

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

Beyond readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses cost (2 search jobs, 3 for string-payload, 1 with filter), auto-deletion, and auto-detected severity disclosure in output. No contradictions with annotations.

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 lengthy but each sentence adds necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers cost, time range, and behavioral notes. Slight room for tighter wording, but overall 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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return: count, first/last occurrence, sample request_id, _sourcecategory, and severity disclosure. Also covers edge cases (string-payload, filter behavior) and constraints (time range, scope query).

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining defaults (query, limit, maxScan), mutual exclusivity of time params, and filter's effect on cost. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 it provides a deduplicated error/warning digest with auto-detected severity, grouping by normalized signature, and top-N problems. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sumo_run_search and sumo_get_messages by emphasizing its triage purpose and aggregated output.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: use for triage, consider sumo_describe_schema for new scopes, specify time range exactly one of 'last' or 'from'/'to', and avoid hostname in scope query. Also explains when to use filter to skip auto-detection.

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