query_event_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself and does well: it discloses default and maximum row counts, the memory-vs-disk source tradeoff, filter syntax examples, and the returned record format. It omits any note on pagination/time-window behavior and whether disk queries are slower or require log storage to be enabled.

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?

Front-loaded summary followed by compact Parameters and Returns blocks - easy to scan and no filler prose. It does repeat parameter names and defaults already present in the schema, which is mild duplication rather than waste.

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?

Without an output schema, the Returns section usefully describes the per-record line format, and defaults/limits are covered. The notable gap is the absence of any time-range parameter or statement that results are limited only by rows, which an agent could otherwise misread as a time-windowed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds value: it enumerates far more category values than the truncated schema hint and gives real FortiOS raw_filter examples ("user==admin", "logdesc=@login"). The vdom parameter is restated but not explained beyond "Virtual Domain name".

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Query event logs") and then enumerates the concrete categories it covers (system, vpn, user, router, wireless, endpoint, ha, sdwan), which implicitly but clearly separates it from siblings like query_traffic_log, query_utm_log, and log_get.

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 category list and parameter defaults make the intended usage inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance, and the obvious alternatives (query_traffic_log, query_utm_log, log_get) are never named or contrasted.

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