search_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes building a DQL query with filters, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential limits, rate limiting, or whether the operation is idempotent. The transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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 three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the action, the second adds detail, and the third provides an alternative. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise.

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 should mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of log entries). It does not. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves some ambiguity about the response format. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify parameter interactions or defaults beyond what's in the schema.

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 searches logs in Grail via DQL, specifying it builds a 'fetch logs' query with optional filters. It distinguishes from the sibling tool execute_dql, which is for advanced needs. This provides a specific verb and resource.

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 mentions using execute_dql for advanced needs, giving an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other log-related tools like search_spans or ingest_logs. The guidance is clear but could be more comprehensive.

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